Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SHEEP (EXPORT TO FRANCE)

11.4 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on my inquiries into the allegations made in the BBC "Midweek" programme on 20th March concerning a consignment of sheep exported from England to France on 12th March.
A thorough investigation has been carried out, statements taken from all concerned, and discussions held with the French authorities. The evidence points clearly to a breach of the French rural law, and I have been informed that the French authorities have taken immediate action to prosecute those who had charge of the sheep and to prevent a recurrence.
There was no allegation that the British welfare regulations were broken, nor on present evidence is there reason to believe that the conditions of the export licence were breached. The reporting of this incident has, however, drawn attention to a possible loophole in our export certification arrangements; and steps have already been taken to require exporters to declare in writing the exact final destination of each consignment of animals when applying for a veterinary inspection certificate. Arrangements have also been made to maintain still closer liaison with the French authorities on every consignment of animals sent.
I am grateful that this matter has been brought to my notice at an early stage in the resumption of the trade, and I am ready to act immediately against any infringement of the welfare rules that is reported.

Mr. Pym: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. Indeed, it would have been inconceivable not to have made a statement on this subject, although some hon.

Members may regret that it has been made on a Friday.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the infringements would have come to light but for the programme to which he referred. Obviously we like to think they would have come to light.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us more about the action that the French propose to take to prevent a recurrence, because clearly the need to prevent any recurrence is in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
Is there any difference between the welfare regulations in both France and Britain? The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no suggestion of British welfare regulations having been broken, but clearly things went wrong in France.
Finally, at the end of his statement the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that he was ready to act immediately against any infringement. I think that in our recent debate the House was concerned that there should be no infringement at all and that there should be a monitoring and an overseeing of the whole trade to ensure that there would be no infringements of the undertakings given in good faith by the Minister in the course of that debate.

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
I have been a Member of this House for 30 years and have always recognised that Friday is just as important as any other day. I should have liked to make the statement earlier, but it was not possible. I inquired whether I should have an inspired Question, but in the end, after conversations with the people involved, I felt it right to make a statement as soon as possible. I thought that I might have made it next week, but unfortunately I have to go to Luxembourg, and I felt therefore that today would be suitable. After all, Friday is an important day.
I turn to the questions which have been asked about our own welfare arrangements. We, with the French, are concerned to fulfil obligations arising out of the Strasbourg Convention.
Regarding the tightening up of arrangements, from 1st April exporters will have to declare in writing the exact final destination of each consignment when


applying for a veterinary certificate. We shall make checks, as appropriate, with any country, and detailed checks with the French are already in operation. My chief veterinary officer has been to France. He is in touch with the heads of the veterinary services of all EEC countries, and their co-operation is not in doubt.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making the statement. However, I remind him that he asked me to put down a Question for Written Answer. I told the right hon. Gentleman that that was not satisfactory, that there would be a bloody row if that was all that happened, and that I insisted upon a statement. I also asked the Minister whether he would be making the statement yesterday. He then told me, knowing of my interest, that he did not think it would be possible before next week. I heard late last night—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question?

Mr. Burden: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: It is a very long preamble.

Mr. Burden: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that I had to hear about the statement from outside and it was not until I rang his colleague last night that I was informed that he was making the statement today.
I should further like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not grateful for the work that the independent and impartial BBC team did which disclosed the fact of these breaches. Should not the whole nation be thankful for it?
What is happening about the individual who had the greatest number of licences and who, according to the BBC team, was well aware of the final destination of these sheep and actually inflicted violence upon a member of that team when he asked him particulars? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to allow that person to have licences for the export of sheep from this country?
I should like, finally, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that this trade can be shown to be unnecessary from figures issued by his Department which disclosed that in January of this year 3,467 tons of carcase

mutton and lamb went from this country to the value of £2·9 million, 3,308 tons of that representing 200,000 animals—to EEC countries. Does not this show that this live trade is not necessary and can be replaced by carcase trade?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings, but I must say that I greatly deprecate the epithet he used.

Mr. Peart: I thought that I was being courteous to the hon. Gentleman, because I know the sincerity with which he holds his point of view. I thought that I would have a word with him. After all, he is not the only Member of the House who takes an interest in this subject. The Opposition have quite rightly been pressing me on this. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I have been discourteous. I had intended no discourtesy.
I have made a full statement, having had a very full inquiry made. I pay tribute to those who made the television film. I had that film specially shown to me. It revealed a certain state of affairs. I acted, having seen the film. I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman about the individual concerned. He has not broken any law or any arrangements that we have made. I am not responsible for his behaviour towards a questioner from the BBC.
On the question of trade with the Continent, this was a decision of the House.

Mr. Burden: A narrow decision.

Mr. Peart: I am not arguing about that. It was a decision of the House. Each consignment has been inspected by our veterinary officers. Before the television programme 271 animals were rejected as unfit for export. Since the television programme six animals have been rejected in two consignments. I have the whole history of what has happened and assure the House that we are enforcing the regulations with great stringency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate what my staff are doing.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Does my right hon Friend accept that there are many of us in the House who were deeply disturbed by the programme and who are very pleased by the statement he has made? We are grateful for the expedition


with which his Department has undertaken the inquiry. Has he had full cooperation from the French authorities, and does he believe that further co-operation is likely? Were the breaches to which he referred breaches of the Strasbourg Convention as such or of internal French laws?

Mr. Peart: The breaches were basically breaches of French law. Prosecutions have taken place. We have received every co-operation from the French authorities and from those concerned in other European countries. There is the closest co-operation between my veterinary officers and their veterinary officers.

Mr. Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I am prompted to put a question to him about this matter as a result of approaches made to me by the Canterbury branch of the National Farmers' Union which expressed its great concern about what was happening to the livestock of its members. May I ask the Minister whether he does not agree with the suggestion made to me by the Canterbury branch of the NFU that it would be advisable to make the final destination clear on the licence by consigning the consignment to a named slaughterhouse? I believe that it is possible for the veterinary surgeon at the port of disembarkation to check back or have a check back made to the slaughterhouse in question to see that the consignment has arrived. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a possibility?

Mr. Peart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I recognise that the farming community is as anxious as any other section of the community to ensure that animals are properly treated. That is commonsense from the business point of view, but there is also the humane point of view. I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said. I will look into the question whether the final slaughterhouse destination should be on the certificate.

Mr. Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be grateful to him for the prompt way in which he acted? Will he assure the House that, should any other unfortunate incident of this nature—which received so much publicity on the television programme—come to light, his Department will act with the same speed and that if

other loopholes come to light he will ensure that they are blocked?

Mr. Peart: Yes. All hon. Members will realise that, no matter what laws or regulations we have, there are always some people who will contravene them. If any infringements come to our notice we shall act promptly. I am glad that in this case the French authorities are bringing a prosecution.

Mr. Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question which was put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym)—whether this matter would have come to light had it not been for the television programme? We are very grateful for the expeditious way in which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the matter.
Can we have an assurance that, unless there is someone who is determined to contravene the regulations, it is most unlikely that there will be any further contravention in view of the steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken?

Mr. Peart: Yes. I pay tribute to those in the BBC who brought this matter to light. I do not complain about their action. I saw the film. It is a question of the destination being marked on the certificate. That is why I am tightening the other regulations. I am grateful to all those who brought the matter to my notice. I repeat that we acted promptly.

PUBLIC HEALTH

11.17 a.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That this House calls for urgent action to be taken to reduce by all possible means preventable lead contamination of the environment, including a significant reduction in the lead content of petrol; to ensure effective monitoring of the environs of all factories engaged in processes with a possible health or safety hazard from lead, vinyl chloride, asbestos and petro-chemicals generally; and to ensure that information so produced is made publicly available in view of the danger of secrecy and the public right to the fullest possible information.
I have chosen this very wide subject for debate today because we are living in a period in which news items week after week force upon us the growing


realisation of the hazards in our environment which we could resolve, or certainly reduce, if we had the energy and the will to do so.
The new analytical techniques which are being developed make us increasingly better able to evaluate some hazards which have hitherto seemed of little importance. This is making us increasingly concerned about such dangers. When these hazards emerge in residential rather than in the traditional industrial areas and in the environs of factories as well as inside them, the general public become increasingly involved and alarmed.
Two recent incidents well known to hon. Members serve to illustrate that point. A few weeks ago, the death of a lorry driver was caused by poisonous fumes arising from the mixing of his load of chemical waste with another chemical at the Pitsea dump, which is world famous. Although Pitsea is generally recognised as a safe dump, the incident has caused concern and alarm in the surrounding heavily built-up area. I have spoken to people in the area, and they tell me that, despite the regular monitoring of the site, there is in their minds a constant fear of the possibility of an even more serious incident, from the build-up of toxic materials, from a dangerous combination of gases or from the leaching of noxious substances. Those fears may be unfounded, but they are genuinely felt, and the recent incident has triggered off even more concern.
The ever-increasing tonnage of toxic wastes and arrangements for their disposal are matters of great public concern, demanding tougher controls and more public information about the risks to health and other dangers. I appreciate that regulations under the Control of Pollution Act are on the way, but in view of that incident and the fully justified public alarm, including alarm in the Essex local authority, which now, I understand, has put an embargo on some forms of waste being dumped at Pitsea, these matters should here and now receive emergency attention from the Government, and the provision of properly controlled alternative arrangements, if we are to prevent unlicensed and indiscriminate dumping of waste elsewhere. Can my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell us whether anything is being done about that which will reassure our people in Essex

and, indeed, throughout South-East England?
The second alarming incident was the explosion only a few days ago at the Laporte chemical factory in Ilford, adjoining a school and also in a residential area. In this incident, too, a man was killed. It seems unbelievable that people living in this area had no knowledge of the chemicals being produced or of the danger involved, despite the experience in another part of the country at Flixborough. Moreover, incredible as it seems, that factory is sited adjoining a school, with no special safety precautions taken. I do not wish to say anything more about that, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw), if he catches the eye of the Chair, will be able to say more about the local concern over the incident.
I appreciate all that the present Minister and his predecessors have done by way of legislation, but it remains a fact that, despite all our legislation, the manufacture of highly dangerous substances is still far too casual, especially in the attention which is paid to the possible consequences for people living in the neighbourhoods concerned. The tightening up of regulations for the health and safety of workers—the concern of another Department—is very welcome, but the danger does not stop at the factory gate, and recent studies have produced alarming results.
Asbestos is a case in point. The risk of asbestos workers contracting asbestosis is now well known, and we have regulations to strengthen the protection of such workers. But this disease is known also in one or two cases of people living outside an asbestos works and not employed there. Although I am not competent to judge the medical aspects, I have seen particulars of a study recently done which indicates that there is considerable evidence of asbestos bodies, as they are called, being found in people living in the vicinity of an asbestos works in East London and suffering from stomach cancer and breast cancer. As I say, I am not able to evaluate the medical significance of that information, but it seems to suggest that there may be a connection of some kind between the presence of the asbestos bodies and these diseases. That is what I mean when I say that new medical


techniques and studies are producing more worrying evidence of that kind.
The other substance which is causing great concern is the gas which is used in the making of polyvinyl chloride—a bit of a mouthful—which is popularly known as PVC. The gas, the vinyl chloride monomer, is known to be extremely dangerous. However, it is both sad and disturbing to know that for at least a year American and European chemicals companies withheld some scientific findings linking liver cancer in workers with VCM, the dangerous gas. It is known also that VCM may increase the risk of brain and lung cancer.
Since 1970 deaths from cancer among workers in a vinyl chloride monomer plant in Kentucky have been double the United States national average. Again, this does not prove anything, but it is cause for concern.
We have regulations to give more protection to workers arising out of the new findings which have been produced, but I have the feeling—I think that it is borne out by much of the evidence—that we are only at the beginning of discovering the harm which this gas can do. We know virtually nothing about the effect on the general population outside such factories.
I remind my hon. Friend that on 29th July last year I asked him whether
he will examine the risk to the general population living in the vicinity of factories making PVC, in the light of recent evidence of death from liver cancer of a resident in the vicinity of such a factory in the United States.
My hon. Friend replied that he was assured by his medical advisers
that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the particular case of liver cancer … was caused by vinyl chloride. In the few cases in which a link between vinyl chloride and liver cancer has been established, it has been, where a worker has been exposed to high concentrations over a long period of time.
Then my hon. Friend added:
Nevertheless, in the examination of the whole problem further information on the concentrations in the air around factories is being collected and will be evaluated."—[Official Report, 29th July 1974; Vol. 878, c. 34.] 
That was on 29th July last year. Is my hon. Friend in a position to tell the House about the further information which is being collected? I realise that

it may be too early for its evaluation, since these things take time, but if he can say something about it that will be helpful.
Another cause for concern is the widespread use of PVC in food packaging. We have heard very little about this, save some reassuring comments from the Ministry of Agriculture and others, but I have a big worry about the use of PVC in food packaging. We are aware, of course, that the matter is being studied in the EEC.
When I raised this matter with the Ministry of Agriculture, I was told that the Department did not think that the presence of the vinyl chloride monomer in food packaging was of any significance because it was there in such minute quantities. In fact, the experts produced figures which one cannot take in, as the amount is so small in relation to the total production of food packaging.
Nevertheless, there is worry about it, and here also the Ministry of Agriculture says that the matter is being kept under review. I do not expect my hon. Friend to be able to say anything about that this morning unless his Department has anticipated my inquiry and given him some information, but it is a matter which we must closely watch, since so many things which we take for granted as safe we are now discovering to be far less safe than was thought.
Another substance about which I am greatly concerned—indeed, this is of paramount importance—is lead. There is growing concern about the effect of lead on health, and especially about the fallout of airborne lead into the general urban environment, where it is now a major contaminant of urban dust. Very high lead dust levels tend to occur adjacent to busy roads and in certain specific industrial locations. Both industry and cars are therefore to blame, and it is horrifying to think of small children growing up in a polluted environment where it is known that this polluting dust is everywhere about them. They are particularly vulnerable to lead absorption.
Of course, lead water pipes and tanks are a further cause of contamination in soft water areas, and a recent study—and this is why I mention the subject in


relation to lead pollution generally—reported in The Lancet of mentally retarded children and non-retarded matched controls found that the water lead content was significantly higher in the retarded group. The study concludes that although it is not possible to prove that lead exposure causes mental retardation, the results of the study strongly suggest that this is so.
The Socialist Medical Association pointed out towards the end of last year,
We cannot afford to wait until a few children have definite brain damage before action is taken. Not only are children more sensitive to lead than adults, they are also at greater risk because of their tendency to suck and chew things—lead-painted toys, soil and dirty fingers.
This is important because so often when we discuss hazards of this kind, we cannot produce cast-iron evidence of damage. As in the case of vinyl chloride and asbestosis, we so often wait until there are deaths before we take action and introduce the necessary controls. I am very much afraid that this is the tendency with lead poisoning, although I appreciate all that has been done to reduce the level of lead in paint, to replace lead water pipes and tanks, and to reduce lead levels in food and so on. But we so often tend to wait until we have a definite proof before we appreciate the real danger.
The Socialist Medical Association estimates that 10 per cent. of children in Britain may have seriously high blood-lead levels. It has pointed out that 25 microgrammes of lead per 100 millilitres of blood was considered possibly dangerous, but that it found levels of 30 microgrammes in some cases. In the United States it is estimated that over 25 per cent. of children in urban areas, as well as a small but significant number of adults, are over-exposed to lead. Again in the United States, it was found that there were increased subtle neurological impairments among children more highly exposed to lead, and that, again, is extremely worrying.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, while recognising that lead exposure is caused by a combination of sources, including food, water, air, lead, paint and dust, concludes,
Leaded gasoline"—

which,of course, to us is petrol—
is a source of air and dust lead which can be readily and significantly reduced in comparison to these other sources.
This is the point I want to stress today and why I am asking my hon. Friend the Minister to do something effective about reducing the lead content of petrol. Studies in Newark, New Jersey, observed that the frequency of lead poisoning and undue lead exposure doubled among children living close to major roadways compared with children living further away.
When one considers the situation in the Greater London Area, in which my constituency is situated, with all the main roads and the traffic, one wonders how seriously we are taking this matter. It is an extremely dangerous one and it is vital that we take action as soon as possible. Delay in reducing the lead level in petrol, the exhaust fumes from which are responsible for over 90 per cent. of urban lead, seems to me almost criminal. Even if it is not criminal, there is one expert solicitor who in an article this month in theNew Law Journal has certain comments to make. His name is David Pedley, and he speaks about the legal implications of lead in petrol. He concludes,
As most petrol is used and can be shown to be used, in circumstances detrimental to public health, and no control can be effected on where (whenever or wherever sold) it is to be used, it is clear that distributing, selling and using leaded petrol is a conspiracy to effect a public nuisance and therefore an indictable common law misdemeanour.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no statutory obligation at present on oil companies to have a determined amount of lead in petrol, although there is a voluntary agreement? Is she aware that Brussels Regulation 3113/73 proposes more stringent regulations than we have at the moment, but that if this is not passed the difficulties of enforcing more stringent regulations by ourselves would involve great economic difficulties? Is she aware that this would apply to similar regulations on similar matters and that this is one of those matters concerning the Common Market where this House will no longer enjoy complete freedom?

Mrs. Butler: I was about to come to the point of economic difficulties. In view


of the clear case which can be made for reducing lead levels in petrol, I am concerned to see that the Government do more to make the public aware of the dangers and to appeal to the public on this point. It is always said that if we reduce lead levels in petrol the petrol will not be so effective and it will be more expensive. However, I was very impressed during the oil crisis last year at how ready everybody to whom I spoke seemed to be to make some kind of sacrifice on petrol. I believe that if the public were appealed to and told that lead in petrol is causing subtle neurological damage to the brains of some of our children they would accept the additional cost and they would press for the kind of action I am seeking.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he will please look at this again to see whether he can do something to stir up his Department and to introduce regulations on the matter. The decision to be taken is political. This is not just a matter for scientists or of evidence. We have to decide whether we can go on taking this risk with our children's health, and we must decide what to do about it. I do not believe that the public, which at the moment is showing so much concern about orphan children from Vietnam, would remain unmoved if the facts about the damage to children from lead in petrol were put over to them. There is great concern for children generally.
I ask my hon. Friend to take this action even if he cannot accept the terms of my motion. I hope that when there are Government petrol stations they will set a good example by giving motorists the opportunity to buy' lead-free petrol. It would be a very great boost for the cause I am advocating if it were done, and it would be very sad if it were not.
I should like to deal further with my main reason for raising this subject today. I do not just want to draw attention to the dangers. I want to impress on my hon. Friend the need for much greater attention to be paid to the fears and worries of the public, who do not always know what the trouble is but are very concerned that something may be going wrong. That is why I am asking for more effective monitoring arrangements.
The British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, with which I have dis-

cussed this matter, has produced a full monitoring programme. I should like to put to my hon. Friend some of the points which it makes. It proposes,
To introduce continuous monitoring of pollutants in vicinity of certain industries, where emissons may be harmful.
It says that three categories of installations should be covered. First there are
Those where some monitoring is already undertaken, and some of the results known.
It quotes the examples of metals such as lead and cadmium. It stresses that,
The monitoring should be made regular, and all the results automatically available to the public.
It quotes as an example of what it has in mind that
The results of the fluoride monitoring around the Invergordon aluminium smelter, are only available to farmers at the discretion of the British Aluminium Liaison Committee—despite the local farmer having been responsible for establishing the monitor in the first place.
It points out that,
Where there is established monitoring, the results should be made available, as if they had been obtained by the powers of the new Act.
The second category is those installations
where little monitoring is done of pollutants with known risks, e.g. asbestos factories and coking ovens…. These monitoring surveys should be complemented by epidemiological surveys (group health surveys)",
such as the one to which I have referred, concerning the asbestos hazard in East London.
The third category is
Those processes where the risks and the pollutant levels are not known.
This category is the most serious, because it is new. We are inexperienced in the use of these processes, and we know little about the possible hazards. It includes vinyl chloride and other petrochemicals. The society stresses a list of chemicals which should be monitored continuously in this way. I shall not weary the House by mentioning any more of them, but the society emphasises—and I agree with what it says—that,
The responsibility for monitoring and publishing the results should be made without qualifications such as 'reasonable', 'best practicable', etc., otherwise the undertaking will be useless—not only from a scientific point of view, but also if it is to gain public confidence.
I mention in the motion the question of more effective monitoring. Can my hon.


Friend say what monitoring is being undertaken, especially in the new petrochemical industries, and whether any results have come through?
The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has made some valuable suggestions in its recently published evidence to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I believe that what it said in its evidence could be helpful in informing the public of the dangers.
As my hon. Friend knows, there is some criticism of the Alkali Inspectorate, but I do not wish to engage in such criticism this morning. The point which is frequently made, and which the AMA supports, that the inspectorate is scattered and is a national grouping, often remote from the local community, is important. If I or any other hon. Member had a pollution problem, such as a factory causing trouble, how many of us would know—I certainly would not—who the local alkali inspector was? But I know my local authority's address and telephone number.
The AMA makes the point that the new large local authorities have the power to appoint more environmental protection officers, who can work in liaison with the alkali inspectors. They are locally known, they know the local problems, and they could be valuable as a link with the public.
This is important because, as in the Laporte Industries incident at Ilford and the Pitsea scare, when people become alarmed they want to get in touch with someone who they think can help. If the local authorities had more powers and more officers it would be extremely helpful.
The AMA also makes the point that more needs to be done about planning decisions and the siting of such installations. I hope that my hon. Friend, if he has not already seen these comments, will study them with some care.
I have sought to open up a complex, difficult subject which is causing a great deal of concern to my hon. Friend and his Department, and to many members of the public. It is a subject about which a great deal has been done already. However, in the context of dangerous chemicals and hazards of one kind or another, the more one knows and the more one does, the more one discovers what there is

to know and to do. Because we are living in a scientific age there will be no let up. We must keep moving forward all the time.
I appeal to my hon. Friend to accept my motion. If he does not, I hope that he will take note of some of the things I have said. I ask him to give us some reassurance cm some of these points and to make it clear that his Department and those concerned in the implementation of the Control of Pollution Act will be very much concerned with the newer substances, which can be extremely hazardous and which will probably need technical changes in monitoring if we are to evaluate them properly. I hope that I have not wearied my hon. Friend with this discourse. I shall be most grateful for any reassurance he can give.

11.48 a.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: I am more than glad to follow my hon. Friend, the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler). The House will be grateful to her for moving the motion, which is of such considerable importance and interest to us all. The House is aware of the interest which my hon. Friend has taken for a long time in all matters concerning the health and welfare of the community.
As my hon. Friend said, the motion is wide. It ranges from the effects on the environment of the lead content of petrol to health and safety in connection with certain manufacturing processes. I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to speak, in view of the incident to which my hon. Friend referred, the explosion at the Laporte chemical works in my constituency.
Before going on to that, I should like in passing to mention a recent experience of mine connected with the pollution of the atmosphere by petrol fumes, such as one finds on many busy roads. There was recently a hold-up on the main road where I live that was caused by flooding. As a result, there was no traffic for a matter of two or three days. The result was amazing. The road had almost the atmosphere of the open country. Noise was virtually non-existent and there were no longer any fumes. I am not for a moment suggesting that we can do much about that, or that we should engineer flooding in order to ensure that traffic does not use certain


roads, but the incident illustrated the effect of pollution engendered by traffic and the emission of petrol fumes.
I want to deal rather more with the aspect of the motion that is connected with the effect on the environment and on health and safety of factories engaged in chemical processes. When I first came to the House, in April 1966, in my maiden speech I referred to the Laporte chemical works in Ilford, South, particularly its effect on a school virtually cheek by jowl with that factory. I was discussing in broad terms the subject of education in my borough.
The subject had received a good deal of attention in the local Press at the time because of the effect of the works—the fumes, smell, noise and so on—on the school. The local newspaper discussed the subject under the heading "The school of shame". What was happening was that even at the height of the summer, in the heat of the day, the windows of the school had to be closed in order to keep out the smells, noise and so on, emanating from the factory.
Things have not changed very much in the course of the years. That was in 1966, but I am still getting representations from many constituents who live in the area and who are affected by the emissions, noise, smells and smoke and all the other unpleasant things that are generally attendant upon chemical works.
It would be unfair to suggest that nothing has been done by the firm, for it has tried its best to ameliorate the situation, but it has not succeeded. As recently as 15th February, I received a letter from a constituent living near the factory. I quote it to show that things have not changed very much since I last spoke on the subject. He said:
During the last couple of years the smells from the factory have turned from an unpleasant but not very regular type into something which can be smelt indoors as well as out of doors, even if doors and windows are shut. I might add I am sure that the smells are being emitted at very regular intervals, much more than when we first moved into the area. … Would you fancy having to pack away your deck chair and go indoors on a sunny Sunday because of a foul smelling brown cloud?
Apart from the inconvenience suffered by the school and the residents, there must

be something in all this about which we do not know too much but at which my hon. Friend hinted. There must be lurking many dangers to the health of those who live in the vicinity and who may be completely unaware of these dangers. More should be done, and I hope that more will be done, to alleviate the situation in that part of my constituency.
I come now to the incident on Saturday 5th April. Let me begin by going back to June 1974 following the Flixborough disaster. It was clearly known that at Laporte's the very same chemical process, namely, the oxidation of cyclohexane, was carried out and that naturally gave rise to tremendous apprehension among local residents, particularly as the school was so close to the factory, a school attended by some 600 youngsters.
As a result of the agitation, there was a public meeting, which I attended, as did representatives of the firm and the various services, the police, the fire service and so on. All in all, the one result of that meeting, at which there was an assurance that there was no real danger from this process, was the institution of a "hot line" between the factory and the school. I do not know how much good that would do, except that in the event of the possibility of danger the school would be alerted much more quickly.
On 13th June, I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he would consider discussions with the firm with a view to possible resiting. I suppose that I might have anticipated the answer. He said that in the first place this was a matter for the local authority, which was the planning and the education authority. I should have thought that my right hon Friend would have delved a little more deeply.
However, there followed a good deal of correspondence between the Redbridge Borough Council, myself and the Secretary of State for Employment. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) may be absolved from giving detailed answers on this subject because the bail is firmly in the court of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
I should like the Minister to give some assurances which might assuage the fears


of the residents. For some time we have been awaiting the report of the inquiry into the Flixborough disaster. The Minister also referred to the safeguards which were envisaged and which were being incorporated in the then current Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill. Subsequently there was also the possibility that this plant should be considered by the new committee of experts on major hazards. Even then, the Minister stated that there was no guarantee that Laporte would be one of the chemical complexes to be considered by that committee.
Then at about midday on Saturday 5th April there was an explosion at the Laporte factory. It is true that it was not a cyclohexane explosion. It was an explosion in a plant which dealt with the processing of hydrogen. As a result one man died and some people were injured. The Factory Inspectorate, under the Health and Safety Commission, acted with commendable promptitude and every effort is being made to find the cause of the explosion.
The following Monday I put a Private Notice Question to Mr. Speaker which I hoped would bring a statement from the Minister. Rather to my surprise I was told that this Question was unacceptable to Mr. Speaker. I had to accept that. Meanwhile I had contacted the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I was assured that after the inspector had reported on the incident an inquiry would be held. I sincerely hope that, whatever happens, an inquiry will be held as soon as possible.
The House may feel that I am dealing with a narrow aspect of the motion. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I must take the earliest opportunity to bring this matter to the notice of the House. Therefore, I am doubly grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling this motion.
This recent explosion has more than redoubled the anxieties of parents and residents in the area of the factory. Even now the factory is being picketed and children are being kept away from school. There is a definite demand by people in the area that assurances should be given. High hopes have been raised by the powers contained in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I demand

that speedy action be taken, although nothing will satisfy the residents other than a resiting of the factory. I know the difficulties involved in this. At the very least any process which is considered to be dangerous should be stopped.
I have mentioned my own constituency and this factory, but obviously the matter has much wider implications. There are many factories like the Laporte factory throughout the country. I agree that there should be public participation and knowledge of what is taking place in these factories because only that will give a certain amount of reassurance to the people who are extremely anxious.

12.5 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for tabling this motion. This is an area where we can safely say that back-bench initiative has proved effective and important over the years.
It was the late Sir Gerald Nabarro who introduced the Clean Air Act of 1956. It was said by some gathered on the top floor of the Department of the Environment on the day that he died, which was a gloomy day, that the fact that they could see from there to Crystal Palace and Muswell Hill was probably the greatest memorial he could have had.
Sadly, those standing outside the Department of the Environment and contemplating the Marsham Street building might wish on most occasions for a thick fog to descend instantaneously and remove their view of that particular bit of environmental pollution. However, that might be held to be outside the terms of this motion.
This is an important subject for several reasons. There is the effect on the health of people working in factories and people living in the environs of certain factories, and on people who are subject to traffic fumes. It is an important subject because it is frequently a matter of public concern, both generally and, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) has pointed out, locally.
We could probably agree that it is also important because there is, in practical terms, almost no limit to the expenditure that could be incurred in improving safety and almost no limit to the regulations that could be introduced. The hon. Member


for Ilford, South said that any process that was in any way dangerous should be stopped. On reflection, he might agree that this is a rather drastic statement, because practically anything can be held to be "in any way dangerous". At the turn of the century it was true that because a man with a red flag—there are no political connotations in this—walked in front of every vehicle, traffic accidents were few. That is not realistic.
There is the difficulty of balancing expenditure, especially at the margin, and regulations against the effect that they will actually achieve. In doing that we have to strike a balance between emotion—which is understandably strongly aroused in many of these cases—and reason. It was once pointed out that there are, in practice, no poisonous substances, but only poisonous concentrations of substances. This is a rather extreme statement, although it is true. Only a very small concentration of some substances is needed to make them poisonous, while others are poisonous in larger concentrations. Household salt is a familiar example. Another, which is of concern to a number of hon. Members and which is in fairly general use, is fluoride. When we become involved in the argument about fluoridation, we see the additional complications and the contradictory arguments of experts.
People with good qualifications argue that certain evidence proves something and other people with equally good qualifications argue that it proves nothing of the sort, or that it proves something else. Equally, they might say that the test was subject to certain degrees of accuracy and that the test carried out was within the bounds of error.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: In the light of what my hon. Friend has just said, there is a great deal of conflicting evidence from experts about the use of fluorides in both food and water. Would it not be wise to minimise their use in food and to ban completely their use in water until we know the exact medical position?

Mr. Sainsbury: Where there is contradictory evidence we must be extremely careful about the regulations permitting the use of any substance. Fluorides are a

clear example. There are regulations laying down the concentration of fluorides permitted in foods but there is the more difficult question whether it is proper for such substances to be introduced into the public water supply. That raises a separate issue, which is perhaps one that I should not go into in detail at this stage.
A matter of considerable importance is the question of reducing pollution and improving the environment. I hope that this will not become a party matter. The nation can feel reasonably proud when it considers the progress that has peen made. As a House, we can be reasonably proud of the number of Acts that have been passed and the length of the debates that have taken place. It seems that we have the framework of control and that we are making, and must hope to continue to make, steady progress in improving the application of the regulations and controls that already exist.
The hon. Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) both raised a second important aspect, namely, the problem of informing and reassuring the public at large and employees of plants where processes are taking place that might be held to be potentially dangerous. Here again, progress has been made. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 is an important aspect of that progress. Against that background there is the problem of the clash between reason and emotion. We must ensure that information is available in a meaningful form to people living in the surroundings and working in the plants.
What has been said about lead is a good example. I am sure that the hon. Member for Wood Green is familiar with an interesting debate that took place on 2nd April last year in another place. During the course of the debate it was suggested that to control the lead content in petrol was basically tackling the problem from the wrong end. One could say that it is literally tackling the problem from the wrong end. It was suggested that the most effective way of tackling the problem was to control the lead content of the gases that are emitted by cars after the process of internal combustion has taken place rather than trying to control the lead content of the petrol that goes into the engine.
There are good reasons for that proposition. I quote from an article in the Petroleum Review of last month, which reads:
A recent report issued by the British Technical Council of the Motor and Petroleum industries embodies the following comment in the principal conclusions: 'gasolene economy in use is most effectively improved by increase in octane quality. The most economic means of effecting this lies in the use of lead anti-knock compounds.'
The situation which exists, as I understand it—I hasten to add that I am not a scientist or an expert on the petroleum industry—means that substantial costs would be incurred if we moved to the total elimination of lead in petrol or moved from the present limit, which I believe is 0·55 grammes per litre. It has been suggested that such a move could cost £425 million in terms of the extra oil that would need to be imported. There would also be refinery expenditure in excess of £300 million. Further, there would be the problem of adapting car and commercial vehicle engines to take lead-free fuel. That would mean that for quite a long period there would have to be on the roads both vehicles with engines accepting lead-free fuel and vehicles with engines requiring fuel with a lead content. Further, there is the problem of the compatibility of our vehicles with other vehicles on the export market.
Many problems and many implications are involved in tackling the problem of lead pollution by trying to reduce too drastically the permitted content in petrol. It seems that we should pursue energetically the theory and the idea of reducing and eliminating the lead content in the gases that are emitted.
We must also recognise that there are serious arguments whether the lead content in the atmosphere arising from petrol fumes is as serious a matter as is sometimes made out. I shall quote from a finding of the United States Court of Appeals. The hon. Lady has mentioned certain evidence from the United States and I think that my quotation is relevant. The majority view of the United States Court of Appeals was
that evidence did not support the Administrator's findings that auto emissions contributed significantly to blood lead levels in adults and children and that the issuance of the regulations was arbitrary and capricious.

The regulations were those seeking to reduce the permitted lead content, and they were therefore set aside.
Of course, the Minister does not have to contend with a Court of Appeals or a court that has the power to set aside regulations as being "arbitrary and capricious", but that finding was clearly arrived at after a great deal of research. Here again it seems that we are considering an area in which experts are arguing on both sides. It is an area about which we need to be concerned and where progress can be made, but it seems that the progress that can be made should be made from the other end of the problem—namely, the exhaust gases from the car. At that end progress can be made more cheaply in terms of our balance of payments and of energy conservation.
I now turn from the question of petrol to that of water. I feel that I cannot miss the opportunity of saying something in praise of the water reorganisation. The Minister may find this surprising coming from me. It seems that as a result of the reorganisation we now have a much better structure to control and monitor effluent. I hope that the Minister will agree that sufficient powers already exist to do that and that it is being done. Progress is being made steadily but we need to keep under review the penalties that are applied to those who discharge effluent outside the permitted limits and those who discharge effluent without permission.
In an inflationary period we may find that penalties become relatively derisory unless they are kept under continual review. I hope that the Minister will agree that the legislation and the regulations that already exist provide a good framework of control. However, there are areas where we should look for improvement. We must avoid complacency. Equally, I suggest that we must avoid emotional over-reaction.
If we are to continue the progress that we have seen, perhaps I may make a few suggestions of ways in which it might be done.
One area of activity concerns the control of effluent. There is a strong case to be made for a drive in a certain area to improve the quality of the water in a river in order to show what can be done relatively easily and cheaply if strict control is introduced of all discharges into that waterway.
Reference has been made to the Alkali Inspectorate. I believe that we should consider enlarging and strengthening it. The hon. Lady said that inspectors were not under the control of local authorities, but we have here a complicated and specialist area. In the Alkali Inspectorate, we have an organisation which is generally admired and respected—not only in this country. Alkali inspectors have a great fund of specialist knowledge, and there is a great deal to be said for building up the inspectorate steadily, so that its own monitoring and inspection can be improved in order to ensure that the areas for which inspectors are responsible, such as scheduled discharges and scheduled factories, are controlled properly.
We should also consider the more ready accessibility of the register of licences. What is more, the results of the monitoring which goes on should be more readily available to the public and to employees. In view of the continuing interest in this area, I suggest that the Department should consider issuing a potted guide to the existing legislation and regulations, even if in present economic circumstances it has to make a charge for it. That in itself could be reassuring to the public, because people would be able to see in layman's language the measures and controls which exist and the responsibilities laid upon various organisations.
We have made progress, and I believe that we can continue to make progress both in improving the environment and in informing and reassuring the public.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I want first to offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for having raised this subject. I appreciate that she has worded her motion fairly broadly. I hope that it will be broad enough for me to make the comments which I wish to make, because I intend to concentrate on the use of fluorides, especially those which are the byproducts of manufacturing processes.
Perhaps I might make a brief comment on the hon. Lady's speech. She mentioned the difficulty of lead pipes in old houses. This is a real problem, and I suspect that it is one which affects a

lot of people living in old properties. In my own constituency there are many properties of this type, which were built 150 or more years ago. In many cases, they still have the original pipes—inevitably lead pipes. There is evidence to show that there is real danger of poison being obtained from the water passing through those pipes, and it could be that children are especially vulnerable. That is a matter which the Minister should examine very closely.
As I said just now, I want to concentrate my remarks on the fluorides produced by manufacturing processes. Sodium chloride is used and results in industrial wastes during the manufacture of aluminium. At this point, I should perhaps declare an interest to the House in case there are any hon. Members present who are not aware of it. I am the chairman of the all-party Anti-Fluoridation Group, which has 85 members. Although the group is concerned principally with water and the possible use of the public water supply for a form of compulsory mass medication, many of us are also concerned about the use of fluorides in foods and other substances.
Some research has been done in various areas about the use of and effect of fluorides. The Medical Research Council had a special project in Scotland. It was decided that it was impossible to detect how much fluoride was being emitted from British Aluminium smelters in the Invergordon area. What is interesting, however, is that since the Medical Research Council report, farming round the Fort William area has avoided those areas where high fluoride contamination might be expected. I suggest that this shows that there is more and more evidence that unless fluorides are used very carefully we are dealing with substances which are highly toxic and could do grave damage in many areas.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) for having referred to the conflicting views among medical opinion about fluorides and their use, and I wish to place on record the names of some of the most prominent members of the medical profession and scientists who, over many years of research, have expressed views showing their concern about the use of


fluorides. I do this because those people who advocate their use, especially in water, tend to say that there is no danger since there is a strong group of doctors and scientists who say that there is no danger. However, there is an equally strong group of opinion on the other side.
I mention a few of their names. There is Dr. Hugh Sinclair, of Magdalen College, Oxford, who is a leading nutritionist. There is Dr. Roger Berry, of Churchill Hospital, Oxford. There is Dr. Reginald Holman of the Department of Bacteriology at the Welsh National School of Medicine. There is Dr. Thomas Day, of Guy's Hospital, London, who is a thyroid researcher. There is Dr. Margaret Crawford, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. There is Professor Nordin, director of the MRC Mineral Metabolism Unit, Leeds. There is Sir Joseph Hutchinson, of Cambridge. All those people are highly reputable and very senior scientists in their own specialties. All have expressed grave doubts about the use of fluorides, especially in water.
I mention one other name, and I quote from a letter which I received recently from the Professor of Physical Chemistry at the Universiy of Salford, Mr. W. J. Orville-Thomas. He writes:
I hope it will be helpful to you to realise that there are very many reputable scientists like myself who oppose this compulsory measure"—
he is talking about the fluoridation of water supplies—
on moral, as well as scientific grounds. So far as I am concerned, the long-term medical effects could be disastrous and it seems ridiculous that any government would be prepared to adopt mass medication on this scale without carrying out the necessary medical research.
I turn from that area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I sense that I am in danger of incurring your displeasure, and that is the last thing that I want to do.
The World Health Organisation report of 1970 concentrated largely on the role of fluorides in human health. Again. I am talking about fluorides which have been produced as a result of a manufacturing process. We know that these fluorides are highly toxic. Indeed, the case could be made out that, rather than putting these substances into food or

water, it is desirable to take them out of food and water wherever possible.
I know that I must not touch upon the moral issues involved. Therefore, I turn to an organisation known as the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation. The foundation has for some time proclaimed the view that it would be much better to use fluorides in milk where they may be directly beneficial to public health, particularly to the health of children, than to use them in any other substances, especially water. I know that I am on procedurally dangerous ground, so I shall conclude on this note.
There is overwhelming evidence to show that the use in food or water of fluorides artificially produced through manufacturing processes can be dangerous. I submit that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, who is with us this morning, should consider this angle and might well like to consult his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security on mounting a major investigation to establish once for all the true medical and chemical position.

12.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I start by expressing appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) for the comprehensive and competent way in which she moved the motion, which the Government have no hesitation in accepting, with a reservation, which I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate, on the urgent question of lead in petrol, with which I shall deal later.
I am sure that the House will want to reflect the growing concern and interest which the country is taking in environmental matters. The Government take the view, which my hon. Friend put forward, that public concern about the environment should be encouraged and welcomed because it can do nothing but good. There is a little risk, as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) said, when one has to rationalise emotional arguments against arguments of reason. Nevertheless, in a free society we must approach that rationalisation in a mature manner. Certainly, the Government's approach in the past 12 months has been on that basis. We want to ascertain as much factual information about the risks


to the environment as we can, we want that information discussed as much as possible, we want there to be as much monitoring of the problem as possible, and we want to provide the public with the results of the monitoring so that we may have sensible debates in the House and thereby conclude sensible legislation.
Our legislation on pollution is probably ahead of that in any other country. In talking to European colleagues I have found that they show tremendous interest in the Control of Pollution Act, which we put on the statute book last year. That legislation is far-reaching, and deals with many aspects of pollution. Because it went through the House rather rapidly towards the summer it escaped the notice of many of the pundits in the Press and media, much to my regret.
When the House disagrees on any matter, headlines appear in the Press, but no such headlines appear on subjects about which we all agree. The Bill—containing 109 clauses and four schedules—which received all-party agreement, was hardly thought worthy of mention. Yet the far-reaching powers contained in the Control of Pollution Act will have a much more profound effect upon peoples' lives than will many of the matters about which the House differs. Perhaps the House will excuse me for getting that off my chest, as I had responsibility for the Bill and steered it through the House in record time, having regard to its complexities. Debates such as this focus attention on the subject, and I hope that our friends in the media, including the Press, will be alerted to the importance of the issues involved.
We should do well to remember that, as the hon. Member for Hove said, we are an industrial society, and it is unreasonable to expect to run an industrial society without incurring risks or dangers. It is not possible to remove the dangers or risks, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) asked that this should be done. We can make certain that those dangers and risks are kept to the absolute minimum compatible with public safety and that there are safeguards and public awareness, and that is the Government's approach. Wherever industrial processes cause danger and risk the Government's view is that the only possible policy is that of maintaining continuous

concern about safety. It is better that unjustifiable risks should be discussed in the House and disposed of by reasonable argument than that they should not be raised, as happened in the past.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) referred to the Alkali Inspectorate. As an old local government man, I am jealous of the rights of local authorities, but it is impracticable for even the new local authorities—reduced to 400 or so—each to contain the collective wisdom and experience which the Alkali Inspectorate has gained over the years. Its activities are very specialised, particularly in the control of smoke emissions and the pollution of the atmosphere in that way.
I join in the tribute which has been paid to our late colleague, Sir Gerald Nabarro, who did so much in the early 1950s to concentrate attention on this danger. The work of the Alkali Inspectorate concerned with industrial processes is first class. In those days I took the view which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green takes now. I wondered whether the job should be given to the local authorities, but my experience now is that in practice the present system works very well.
The hon. Member for Hove teased me about the building in which I work—the Department of the Environment. I agree with him that it is probably one of the most unattractive buildings in London. The one advantage of working in it is that one cannot, from inside, see what the building looks like. From my office on the eighteenth floor there is a superb view of London and one can see all the clean buildings—what a joy it is to behold. I do not invite the public to come to my office to see the view, but when my environment colleagues come to see me the first thing they want to do is to look out over London. When they look out and see the clear London atmosphere and the cleaned buildings, they comment on our great success and say what a joy it is to see London.
I have to explain to them that, the reason for our success is that in our legislation we have adopted the principle that the best practicable processes and means must be used. Some people think that it is possible to lay down in legislation hard and fast pollution standards. But it is not possible in an industrialised society.


However, we can demand of our industrialists—this practice has been adopted by successive Governments—that they use the best practicable means of dealing with a given situation and that if there are better means through the Alkali Inspectorate they must adopt them.
I am glad of the opportunity to be able to refer to the campaign of Sir Gerald Nabarro and the question of atmospheric pollution because it dramatically illustrates how the British approach to the subject, given an industrial society such as ours, has succeeded. If we adopt the same practical approach to other matters, such as the matter of noise, which interests me, I hope that we shall have similar dramatic success.

Mr. Bowden: It is a source of great pride to London and to the country generally that when the right hon. Gentleman's opposite numbers from other parts of the world come to see him they are able to look out of his office window at a London which is so much cleaner than it used to be. It is a matter of great satisfaction to know that when a building in London is cleaned it will be a long time before it becomes dirty again, whereas 25 years ago a building could have been cleaned and within months start to look grey, and a few months after that again look black.
Does the Minister agree that one of the black spots which are left—I am not sure whether he can see it from his office window, but it is possible to see it from elsewhere in his Department—is the Palace of Westminster, which should be cleaned as quickly as possible? It is one of the first buildings which visitors look at, and parts of it are disgraceful.

Mr. Howell: I can look out on to the Palace of Westminstear, and I do so frequently, especially when I am in a contemplative mood. I may, for instance, focus my attention on Big Ben. However, I am not an expert on the subject of cleaning. There are difficulties concerning the nature of the stone with which the Palace of Westminstear was constructed, but much work has been done in cleaning it. Quite recently some experimental work was done on a portion near the House of Lords to see how best the stone could be cleaned. I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall ensure that my colleague in the Department who has

responsibility for this building is made aware of it.

Mrs. Butler: I should not like to do the Association of Municipal Authorities an injustice, and in my enthusiasm for its paper I may have given a misleading impression. I understand that what it said was that it had qualified inspectors in smoke control and air pollution matters, and that greater use could be made of them. It had no intention of superseding the Alkali Inspectorate, but wished to work with it, with the inspectorate working on a national basis and the local authorities working locally, which seemed to me a very good point.

Mr. Howell: It is a good point, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up the matter. That is our approach. At meetings which I have had to discuss specific problems when I have had members of the inspectorate with me, together with representatives of the local authorities, I have emphasised that although all the technical expertise is with the inspectorate there should be the maximum co-operation with the public health inspectorate and local authorities and that the central expertise could be made widely available. That policy is acceptable to the Alkali Inspectorate.
I come specifically to the question dealt with in the motion. The Government accept the need for all the processes to be effectively monitored. The first priority for the Central Unit on Environmental Pollution, set up in 1970, was to co-ordinate Government measures for pollution control, and the first measure taken was a comprehensive survey of monitoring effort. I am glad to say that the report of the survey revealed that this country is probably more intensively monitored than any other industrialised country, which possibly gives us some degree of satisfaction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green may be aware of the regular national survey on smoke and sulphur dioxide carried out by local authorities and co-ordinated for the Government by the Warren Springs Laboratory. A number of substances pose local rather than national problems. For instance, fluoride can give rise to very undesirable emissions round ceramic and brick works.
I do not wish to comment on what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown said about the question of fluoride in water, except that I have never agreed with his policy, so I am not one of the 86 Members. However, he will know that this is a matter not for my Department but for the Secretary of State for Social Services. I had not come prepared to talk on that subject, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that very careful attention is being given to the question of the presence of fluoride in foodstuffs and its addition to water and other substances. No doubt if he wishes to pursue the detailed questions which he raised he will do so with the responsible Minister. However, I do not object to his taking the opportunity afforded by this debate to raise such matters.
One of the purposes of monitoring is to enable us to spot in advance the problems which might arise nationally or locally. It is important, therefore, that our monitoring system should be designed to deal with new factories and the production of new substances. We have, in fact, recently reviewed and widened the scope of the air monitoring programme with a view to ensuring that it covers the kind of substances which may be released by modern processes. For example, my Department, in co-operation with local authorities, is sponsoring a study of the levels of various pollutants, including heavy metals such as lead and cadmium, at a series of sites throughout the country in both industrialised and non-industrialised situations. The results of the study will be published. This is in addition to the many local surveys which firms and local authorities are carrying out on their own account.
Noxious substances also reach the environment through water courses, and the monitoring of the quality of our rivers has long been a practice of authorities responsible for the condition of water for the public. The national river survey has illustrated the findings of this monitoring. Recently water authorities have been reorganised. As a result there is probably greater concentration of attention than ever before by the water authorities on the disposal and cleaning of water and on what the hon. Member for Hove called the problem of effluent.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member mentioned the matter. It is true that

as a result of the reorganisation of water authorities, by which we in the Labour Party were not very attracted, one of the benefits—the public are complaining about it—has been the determination of the new authorities to take effective action to deal with our sewage and waste disposal in a satisfactory way. I am afraid that there is a long history. A working party chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) showed the history of neglect in this matter, regrettably, by some local authorities which needed to be put right.
We cannot tackle those problems on the cheap. It is very expensive to put in new sewage systems and to see that water is treated properly to meet society's needs. We now have to use water several times over in the course of progress. For example, from where the Thames rises in Oxfordshire to its mouth the water might be used six or seven times over, being cleaned and treated each time. The growth of demand for water by the domestic user and by industry is enormous.
If we are to use our precious assets to the full and recycle water in this way, cleaning it to safeguard public health is an expensive business. So we cannot escape the fact that, if we want clean air and cleaner and more wholesome water, those things must be paid for. The public are entitled to accept that the water authorities carry out their duties as efficiently and economically as possible—and the Government intend to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the Minister will agree, when he refers to the public complaining that the complaints arise from the cost of the improvement. They come from individual members of the public or from companies who have to carry out sometimes expensive works to improve the effluent. I take it that he agrees that the reorganised water authorities are much better placed to bring about this improvement. Would he care to comment on the suggestion of a particularly intensive programme in one area to show what can he achieved by control to improve the quality of the water course to a remarkable degree?

Mr. Howell: I am afraid that the size of the capital programme necessary to


meet this backlog of neglect is enormous. Ministers have to consider other parts of their programme, like the need for housing and schools, and decide how much the country can afford at any one time. We have not done badly at all in terms of the size of the capital programme which we have provided for the water authorities.
There is something to be said, where it is possible, for concentrating on one aspect of a problem and doing it well so as to show what can be done. The Government take the view that there is a lot of sense in this, especially as applied to one of the tidal estuaries. We are attracted by the idea of doing this in the Tyne. If we concentrated resources on cleaning up the Tyne and bringing back new life to it—not only cleaning the water but opening up access for people to enjoy the pleasures of waterside walking, and so on—it would show the tremendous possibilities which exist elsewhere. We are looking at this at present. but I repeat that the question here, as in other areas of government, is that of the availability of money.
Still dealing with monitoring, we are also in the throes of improving our knowledge of the solid waste that has been placed on tips around the country and what can be expected in future. An extensive survey is currently being carried out on the condition and content of all tips. Here again, the provisions in the Control of Pollution Act will require authorities to continue to keep the kinds of records of the disposal of potentially toxic wastes which are already required under the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act.
I hope that this detailed information on monitoring will satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green, who properly raised it in her motion, that we attach the greatest importance to continuous monitoring. If we feel it necessary to take steps for additional monitoring, we shall not hesitate to do so.
The publication of this information when collected as a result of monitoring is another important matter. Discussion on sources of information on emissions and discharges of waste to the environment lead me naturally to the right of the public to access to the information. We

fully accept the public's right of access here. There is a little difficulty of course on the subject of the confidentiality of information about waste release which has exercised the minds of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, on which we have commented more than once.
We have accepted the Royal Commission's view that the whole aura of secrecy which cloaked information in the past is not only unnecessary but in many cases is counter-productive. We much prefer a more open policy, subject only to the kind of trade secrets on which we are told that we must maintain confidentiality in the interests of British industry. The Department takes the view that it is highly unlikely, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that our trade competitors could discover from an analysis of our waste products many of the industrial secrets that we are anxious to maintain. So we share the Royal Commission's view on this subject.
I have spoken about the Control of Pollution Act, to which we attach the greatest importance. I do not think that the House will want me to go into detail about the considerable powers under the Act, which are brought into operation by statutory instrument. We are consulting local authorities to discover the programme for bringing it in, which we are anxious to do as early as possible.
I am hopeful that a timetable will start, bringing the Act fully into operation in many respects later in the year. One or two aspects will have to be deferred, but only because, in their present financial situation, local authorities believe that those parts of the Act which require additional staff or expenditure must be delayed for a year or so until they can meet those commitments. We are in discussions with the local authority associations and co-operating fully with them over the implementation of the whole Act.
I turn now to the question of lead in the environment, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green devoted much of her speech. I hope that she and other hon. Members have found time to read the report on lead, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. That serves to put this matter into perspective


and answers many questions raised today. We share my hon. Friend's concern.
For the benefit of those who have not read the report, I should like to sum up its principal conclusions. The first is that there is no evidence that present levels of lead in the environment are hazardous to health.
The report recommended, and the Government fully accept, that, because lead is a known toxic substance, it would none the less be prudent not to allow these levels to rise, if possible, and, indeed, to take positive steps to reduce them, especially in areas or circumstances where people are most exposed to risks. Many steps have already been taken or initiated, and I will deal with some of them.
A great deal of the debate has centred on the amount of lead in petrol. By far the greater part of man's intake of lead is through food and drink. Because of this knowledge, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food undertook a comprehensive survey to discover the lead content in food, the results of which were published in 1972. It is reassuring to discover that the dietary intake of lead of the average person in the United Kingdom does not appear to have increased over the last 25 years, despite the vast increase in that period in the use of lead in petrol, to which I will turn shortly.
The report identified problems in some areas where soft water may have a tendency to dissolve the lead content of pipes—that is another matter that has come up—and, therefore, drinking water would consequently exceed the standard recommended by the World Health Organisation. Even in areas—I do not like the jargon—of plumbo-solvent water, we have found that only a small proportion of tap samples exceed the World Health Organisation standard, and then not by very much.
It is worth noticing that this standard is set at a level far below that at which clinical symptons of lead poisoning would normally be expected to occur. That is a very important point. None the less, the attention of the authorities concerned has been drawn to possible remedies, which include chemical treatment and the replacement of lead pipings and fittings. This kind of replacement is tak-

ing place all the time with our urban renewal programmes which tend to be concentrated in areas where there is older housing.
In the short term, I should like to take this opportunity of re-emphasising the advice that we have given to people who still have lead pipes in their homes. The most important thing is to run to waste the water which has been standing in lead pipes overnight. This advice has already been given. My advice to people is that, if they have lead pipes, for heaven's sake turn on the tap first thing in the morning and allow some of the water to run to waste before using it. What concerns me is that often the people who need that advice never receive it. I should appreciate any help that I can get from appropriate authorities to make that advice known to the people concerned. The main thing is to replace lead pipes as soon as possible. That is an aspect of our urban renewal programme to which we attach great importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green touched briefly on the dangers of the lead content in paint. Some years ago the high lead content in paint was a serious matter. It led to most of the common causes of lead poisoning. Children especially, as my hon. Friend said, have a tendency to chew things, most of which have been painted. With modern processes and new properties in paint, that is not now the problem that it used to be.
There are 1,000 lead works in this country. The problems of many of them, particularly in Avonmouth, the Isle of Dogs and Rotherhithe, have been taken up in the past and action has been taken to reduce the risk of lead escaping to the environment outside those factories. Codes of conduct covering industrial hygiene have been issued from time to time, but the important thing is the continuous monitoring of the environment immediately surrounding these works. That programme is going on, including the measurement of the levels of lead in the blood of children living in the vicinities.
I turn now to the question of lead in petrol to which my hon. Friend referred. This is a matter with which we have constantly been dealing since I have been in office, and I understand that my predecessors were also dealing with it.
I went to Gravelly Hill—Spaghetti Junction, as it is called—and established a working party to find out what was happening there. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), in whose constituency the hideous Spaghetti Junction is situated, is present because he accompanied me on that occasion. We have had remarkable co-operation from the Aston University authorities, and particularly the Birmingham District Council, in the monitoring programme that we have conducted at Gravelly Hill. We have also been conducting monitoring programmes on the effect of lead emissions from motor vehicles in other parts of the country in other situations.
Whilst there has been an increase in the levels of lead in the blood of people in the area of Spaghetti Junction, for example, which need to and will be kept under constant watch, the message from the working party is reassuring. It is that the levels of lead in the blood which we have been able to check from the different programmes should not give us any cause for alarm.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is not now present. No doubt still thinking of the earlier events of this week in the House, he rather suggested that the fact that we are in the Common Market would prevent this House debating questions of that kind. My hon. Friend explained that he could not stay as he had a constituency engagement, which I well understand. Since my hon. Friend made that suggestion, I should point out that, because of the processes of this House, there is likely to be more, not less, control over this matter. My hon. Friend was not right in what he said.
For example, the question of the lead content in petrol has received the attention of the Scrutiny Committee on European legislation, and we have given an undertaking, on its recommendation, that there will be a specific debate on this matter when the proposed EEC directive limiting the lead content in petrol comes before the House later in the Session. I think that is a matter about which we can be reasonably pleased.
I should explain to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has recommended that, before

we have any further reductions in the lead content in petrol, a major review should be undertaken. The reason is that we undertook to reduce the level of lead in petrol in November last year. The present level of lead in petrol is 0·55g per litre, which became effective on 1st November. According to EEC regulations, we should have a further reduction to 0·40g per litre, which is the figure that the EEC directive is likely to suggest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green spoke strongly on this matter. Indeed, to a large measure I share the strong feelings that she expressed. The difficulty is entirely one of the balance of payments. There is no problem about telling people to limit the amount of lead in their petrol, or that they should not have lead in their petrol. Lead is not necessary in petrol, but it increases the efficiency of the vehicle. it gives the vehicle a boost, or whatever young people who drive their motor cycles around the country call the phenomenon. Lead reduces the knocking quality of petrol.
If lead is removed from petrol, more oil is needed to produce the same degree of efficiency. For balance of payments reasons the Government were not able to proceed with the next stage of the programme of reduction from 0·55 to 0·40 grammes per litre. Such a reduction would cost us £20 million per annum, provided that at current market prices all the other byproducts from crude oil could be sold. I am told that it is far from likely that, if more oil were imported to be processed, we should be able to sell off all the byproducts. If that were the case, the cost to the country of the further reduction would be about £60 million. Therefore, between £20 million and £60 million is the best estimate I can give of the cost of the further reduction of the lead content in petrol.
It is not a question of charging for it. I tend to agree with the view expressed by my hon. Friend that the motorist would agree to pay an additional price to help clean up the environment in this way. It is a question whether the country can afford at this moment to take on a further imposition of this kind on the balance of payments.
For this reason, the Government were anxious to look further into the question of filtering the lead out of exhausts by


attaching a lead filter trap to motor cars. The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is undertaking an extensive programme of research into the development of the special type of filters involved. There is good news and bad news here. The good news is that the work has proved encouraging in showing that such traps are capable of removing a large proportion of the lead from exhaust gases. The bad news is that it would cost about £100 million a year to require all cars to be fitted with such filters.
Here again, when the programme is concluded we must make a judgment as to whether it would be better to put up with the increased cost on the balance of payments by removing the lead from the petrol before using it in motor cars or whether the problem should be dealt with after petrol has been burned by trying to trap it, which would cost £100 million a year and would probably take 10 years to achieve.
I am not making a statement of Government view here. I am just giving the House the facts. Personally I am rather inclined to share my hon. Friend's view that, although we would like to see the filter programme succeed, it may be that in this case prevention is better than cure. Nevertheless, that would depend upon the financial considerations.

Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister agree that this is an area where it is necessary to act internationally because of the need to adapt vehicle engines to take fuel with the specified lead content? Because of the very considerable international trade in motor vehicles, is not this a good example of an area where international cooperation is called for and where our working with the European Economic Community is likely to make that much more possible?

Mr. Howell: That is a reasonable point to make. My experience of our partners in Europe is that they will require that any cars we manufacture for export to them are capable of conforming with their regulations. This will therefore be an important determining factor at the end of the day. It is still an open question whether we proceed by having engines capable of using the type of petrol which is on the market at the time or by the filter method.
The review will include consideration of the latest medical evidence relating to the effects arising from lead in petrol, since the question which must be decided is how far public health is at risk. The one point which will be covered in this context is the extent to which levels of lead below those traditionally associated with clinical lead poisoning may be adversely affecting the public.
My hon. Friend may be aware that this is a matter of considerable scientific controversy. Although certain groups in the population—in particular, children—are known to be particularly susceptible to lead, the absorption of lead and reaction to it tend to vary widely between individuals. Therefore, there is no single figure which can be given as a safe level for the public, although less than 40 microgrammes per 100 millimetres of blood is usually taken as the top level.
At the same time, although subclinical concentrations are certainly known to have a biochemical effect, whether such effects are damaging in the long term is still unknown. Meanwhile, we must treat with great care claims that enhanced blood lead levels below those normally associated with clinical poisoning are either associated with or a cause of mental or behavioural abnormality. Some claims have been made which would obviously concern us all but which are subject to rather different views from other experts in the field. Therefore, in the present state of our knowledge I hope that the medical people concerned will not cause undue public concern on this matter.
The Department of Health and Social Security is assessing the problems of the behavioural effects of lead and will carry out work with control and exposed groups of people as better techniques detecting subtle effects become available. Meanwhile, the Department has set up a laboratory monitoring system in the United Kingdom to measure blood lead in children, to assess blood in urinary enzyme levels and to relate such studies to clinical work.
I turn now to the question of polyvinyl-chloride, which has occasioned considerable interest, particularly the question of vinyl chloride monomer. This is obviously a potentially hazardous substance. The dangers of high exposure of factory workers to VCM and the link with angiosarcoma, which is a rare form of liver


cancer, are well known, but fatal cases identified to date total about 30, including two in this country. These cases involve workers exposed to very high concentrations of VCM over extended periods.
There are only six works in the United Kingdom where VCM is manufactured, and these are works where the major potential hazards lie. All are subject to very intense control internally by the Factory Inspectorate and externally by the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate. I assure the House that in those six cases the matter is kept under constant review and we believe that the controls we have at present are adequate for our purpose. As I have said, the greatest danger comes not from the outside environment but at the work place within the industry.
Measurements of VCM concentrations are being taken outside the production plants, and the Alkali Inspectorate has been working closely with the Factory Inspectorate and the Department of Health and Social Security, together with—I should add—the Chemical Industries Association. I am happy to tell the House that the Chemical Industries Association has always displayed a very responsible attitude to this question and to the various hazards involved.
Measurements so far have been found to be near the limit of detectability, which is about one part per million. The indications are, therefore, that VCM is not a danger to public health in this country. Moreover, I should make clear that in the vast number of factories throughout the country where PVC is fabricated into final products, the only VCM emissions are minute traces which have been entrained in the PVC. However, a great dealof work is still to be done to make sure that the public are not exposed to risk, and that work is under way.
I turn now to the asbestos problem. As with VCM, exposure to asbestos is principally a hazard in the working environment, and for this purpose the Factory Inspectorate prescribes stringent precautions. Measurement of the fibre content of the atmosphere in towns in which asbestos factories are situated does not suggest that the level is significantly different from that in other towns, or that a general health hazard exists. Very small quantities of asbestos fibres can normally be found in most industrial towns, but

there are several orders of magnitude below the threshold considered significant for health purposes.
As I have said, in this case also the principal problem arises from exposure in the work place, and the Department of Employment has now issued protective regulations. General environmental levels of asbestos fibres are not considered sufficiently high to create a general health hazard, as I have said, but do-it-yourself enthusiasts and odd-job handymen may be at some risk from working with asbestos-containing materials, which are widely used because of their cheapness and fireproof qualities. Therefore, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection is actively considering measures, including regulations, to improve protection in this area.

Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend probably knows of the situation in my constituency where an asbestos plant was closed in 1970, since which there has been considerable cause for local anxiety. More than 30 former employees at that plant have died from asbestosis, and about 200 are now suffering the effects of the disease. The latest development is the diagnosis of asbestosis in two of my constituents who never worked in that plant, who had no connection with the plant and who had no contact with it throughout their working lives.
I suggest, therefore, that complacency in this matter is not justified, and I urge my hon. Friend to recognise that we may well see an increase in the number of people contracting asbestosis who do not work and have not worked with the substance in the working environment.

Mr. Howell: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I assure him that there is no complacency whatever, and I hope that I did not leave him with that impression. Indeed, I went out of my way to make clear that that is far from true. My last observation before he intervened was to point out that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection is actively considering measures, including regulations, to improve protection. Naturally, I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friends says about circumstances in his constituency, the bulk of the cases affected having been thought hitherto to be the


result of exposure to the industrial process.
If this hazard has transmitted itself outside, I certainly agree that this should be invesigated. If my hon. Friend is not already in communication with my Department on the matter, I shall be grateful if he will now get in touch. I am very ready to see him to follow up the matters which he has raised.
I come now to the petrochemicals industry and, in particular, the incidents at the Laporte works and at Flixborough. Here also one has every possible sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South and his constituents, as well as with all others who are worried about the potential hazards from petrochemical works. If my hon. Friends are concerned about emissions into the air, they can be assured that this part of the control lies with the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate. However, I understood that their principal concern was about the location and planning of such works, especially at Ilford. I have a good deal of sympathy with what they say, but I must point out that according to my information the Laporte factory was there before the houses and the school were erected, and not the other way round.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: The factory was there before the houses, but I cannot say that it was there before the school. The school is pretty ancient. However, the important point is that over the course of years the nature of the plant has changed considerably, and a good deal of planning approval must have been given to bring the plant to the state it is in now.

Mr. Howell: That is precisely the point I was coming to. If there is a major change in the processes within a factory, our planning law requires the approval of the planning authority. Naturally, that requires the maximum information being made available to the local authority, its officials and the public at large, but it is a planning matter, and these processes could not be carried out in the factory unless planning permission had at some stage been given.
As we know, before planning permission is given the proper notices have to

be displayed, and people may object to the application, if they wish. I do not think that there is any short cut round those planning procedures. However, that is not to say that I have no sympathy with those concerned in their present difficulties or that I do not wish to help my hon. Friend is dealing with the special problem which has arisen in his constituency.
On more than one occasion the Government have impressed on local authorities the importance of taking into account the safety of the proposed industrial development when considering planning applications. The danger to surrounding communities is an important consideration. Expert advice on these matters from the Factory Inspectorate is available to local authorities, since one would not expect every local authority to have the necessary expertise within its own staff.
The whole question of the safety of potential major hazards is at present being investigated as a matter of urgency by the committee of experts on major industrial hazards, to which my hon. Friend referred, and that committee will be reporting to the Health and Safety Commission.
As was clear in the circumstances at Pitsea, when these regrettable incidents occur one of the immediate consequences is that a large number of inquiries are set in train at once by various Government agencies and the inspectorates, by the local authorities and, of course, by the coroner himself. The coroner's court conducts an extensive inquest into such matters.
The fatal incident at Pitsea, for example, was subject to investigation by the Essex County Council, the police and the Health and Safety Executive, as well as by the coroner himself, and I am confident that all the necessary information will be available at the resumed inquest to establish precisely what happened and what should be done to prevent a repetition. We shall certainly consider it very carefully and take any steps which it appears are required in order to satisfy the public.
No evidence at present suggests that this specific incident reflects a continuous danger to the population generally. It is much more likely to be proved that the management of the tip is a matter


for the health and safety executive, but judgments on that must await the outcome of the inquiry, and particularly the outcome of the inquest.
As for proposed restrictions by the local authority, we are closely in touch with the Essex County Council about the investigations which I have already mentioned and any other measures which Essex may think necessary to restrict the amount of waste being deposited at Pitsea. Such restrictions may, of course, cause problems to industry. We understand that. I re-emphasise the importance of implementing the Control of Pollution Act, which would give much more control and much more information about the long-term effects of these problems.
I shall conclude on these two cases, particularly the Laporte case, by saying that if my hon. Friend thinks there is anything more we can do to help him, his local authority or his constituents, we shall be most anxious to do it. I should be very pleased to meet any of the responsible members of the authority and to discuss with him and them anything further that the Government might be thought capable of doing. I share my hon. Friend's concern, and it is very important to allay public fears, particularly the fears of constituents who live close to factories. This can best be done by making sure that they have access to all the information available to us.
I hope that I have achieved the feat—in a rather lengthy speech on a technical matter—of answering all the points raised in this wide-ranging debate. Perhaps I may now deal with my hon. Friend's motion. I hope that she will appreciate from what I have said that I have the greatest possible sympathy with it. The only part of it which causes difficulty for the Government is that aspect which asks for urgent action. including a significant reduction in the lead content of petrol. If my hon. Friend is happy to accept that that means, in practice, that the inquiry which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has put into hand should proceed in order to tell us much more about the best and most economic way of achieving that end in the light of balance of payments and for other financial considerations, I shall be happy to ask the House to accept the motion.
We shall give urgent and continuing priority to the important matters which are raised by the motion. It has provided us with a debate which we can all look back on with some degree of satisfaction, not that we have solved the problems but that we have gone a long way to achieving what my hon. Friend wants, which is to expose to public gaze these problems in order that they may be discussed sensibly and intelligently, and so that we may ensure that continuing action is taken to meet them.

1.34 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: With the permission of the House, may I say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) for the description he has given of the situation in his constituency. It puts in a nutshell many of the problems we have been discussing this morning. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) about the folly of adding fluoride to the water supply when we know so little about its long-term effects.
The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) made certain interesting points, with many of which I agreed. But he said that we could spend unlimited sums on trying to meet all the problems which have been raised this morning, and that is true. We could spend more and more and still not do all that needs to be done. But I am not satisfied that we get as big a financial contribution as we might from the industries concerned—and this is a point we might look at when we are asking for more and more monitoring—or whether we are getting the necessary financial assistance from those industries to monitor the environment outside the factories.
The hon. Gentleman said that we are making steady progress, and that was evident from what my hon. Friend the Minister said and from our knowledge of what has been done. This is a situation, however, in which we have to run faster in order to try to keep up with the many changes which take place. I agree that we cannot be complacent. We must review our procedures continually, as the Minister indicated the Department is doing, to ensure that we keep abreast


of all that needs to be done. The particular point which the hon. Member for Hove made about the choice between reducing the lead level of petrol and trying to facilitate the removal of lead from exhaust fumes by technical devices has been considered by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. It reports,
The lead-free gasoline regulations were proposed primarily to ensure the availability of lead-free fuel for use in automobiles designed to meet Federal emission standards with lead-sensitive emission control devices".
It was precisely because it had these lead-sensitive emission control devices that it wanted lead-free petrol. It continues,
The Agency recognised that these regulations would also result in a reduction in lead emissions from the new automobile segment of the vehicle population, which would be equipped with those devices. However, based on public health consideration, it was considered necessary to propose a reduction in the lead content of leaded gasoline as well.
So it is not, as the hon. Member suggested, a question of either-or. The EPA took the view in detailed studies—and more has probably been done in the United States in this respect than here—that lead-free petrol was necessary in order to use the exhaust devices effectively, and that is an important point.
My hon. Friend the Minister made many important comments on this debate and I accept that he and the Department are doing a great deal in this respect. I wonder whether on monitoring I might perhaps send him further details of the sort of scheme which has been put to me. I am more than a little concerned when he says that we cannot live in an industrial country without risks. That is so, but I am concerned that the people who have to accept the dangers and risks are so often the workers in the factories and the people who live in close proximity to those factories. Often the people who cause the dangers and the risks by setting up the plant, people who will do well out of the proceeds, hide themselves away in more salubrious areas and do not take the strain like the local people.
And there is another important fact: the men and women who live in the neighbourhood of a factory but who go

off every day to their offices and places of work, like the older children who go off to school, do not stay in that atmosphere all the time. It is the small children and the stay-at-home mothers who are in it for 24 hours a day and are therefore more at risk.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had to leave without telling us what he was going to say about the EEC. What he probably had in mind was of concern to some of us and relates to the EEC directive which we shall be debating shortly. Some of us are worried that the introduction of an EEC directive may mean that if we wanted to go further and faster than the directive we would have considerable difficulties in doing so. The problem has arisen in other connections. I am glad to see my hon. Friend, the Minister, vehemently shaking his head, indicating that it will not be so in this case. However, it obviously would be an important matter if we did not have his reassurances.
I believe that the effect on the balance of payments of removing lead from petrol—and I may be wrong, because I am not a mathematician—would be minimised if we reduced our imports of petrol still further. This was the point I had in mind when I said that in the oil crisis last year there was considerable public support for petrol rationing. If we were not using so much petrol surely the cost to the balance of payments would be reduced. In a debate of this kind I am obviously not advocating that, but there was a great deal of public feeling that this should be done. If we reduced the lead content of petrol, if the price increased, and if there were a charge on the balance of payments, people would have to use less in the end, and perhaps from the point of view of general pollution that would not be such a bad thing.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. In view of what my hon. Friend has said about the possibility of reducing the level of lead in petrol as a result of the study, and the forthcoming debate on the directive which he has mentioned, I shall not press the motion. I accept my hon. Friend's assurances that its general spirit is accepted both by himself and by the Government.

Mr.Deputy Speaker (Mr. OscarMution): Does the hon Lady Wish to withdraw her motion?

Mrs. Butler: I did not think that it was necessary for me to withdraw it if I was not pressing it a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion must either be withdrawn or put.

Mrs. Butler: I understood my hon. Friend to say that he accepted the motion subject to what he said, and therefore I do not withdraw it.

Mr. Denis Howell: If my hon. Friend wishes to withdraw the motion, I shall not object, but I would not ask the House to turn it down. I have no objection to the motion being put, provided it is understood that the urgent action for which she is asking on leaded petrol is subject to the various provisos I mentioned in my speech, such as the review that is going on and the consideration of the alternative balancing factors. From what my hon. Friend has said, I am sure she accepts that we are doing our best to deal with the point practically and as soon as we can. Subject to that, I see no reason why the motion should not be put to the House and accepted.

Mrs. Butler: With that assurance, I ask that the motion be put.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House calls for urgent action to be taken to reduce by all possible means preventable lead contamination of the environment, including a significant reduction in the lead content of petrol; to ensure effective monitoring of the environs of all factories engaged in processes with a possible health or safety hazard from lead, vinyl chloride, asbestos and petro-chemicals generally; and to ensure that information so produced is made publicly available in view of the danger of secrecy and the public right to the fullest possible information.

RULE OF LAW

1.44 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I beg to move,
That this House regrets Her Majesty's Government's lack of support for the rule of law.
I wish to call attention to threats to the rule of law. In a sense, this subject is the most important of those which we debate in the House in time of peace, although one would not think so by the attendance in the House today.
The rule of law is the foundation stone upon which our civilisation rests. It is the structure which makes all the laws we pass here meaningful to the working of our society and the happiness of our people. It is so fundamental that we take it too much for granted. We learn about it, feel that it will always be there, and move on to deal with the minutiae and details of legislation, or, as perhaps more truly explains the turn-out in the House today, we move off to do other work in our constituencies. However, we do wrong to take it for granted. It may not always be there. Even now it is being eaten away by certain forces, and hacked away by others, while we stand carelessly by and wait for its destruction.
Let me define my terms and the limits within which I shall confine my argument. Much has been written about the concept of the rule of law. It has many meanings. I shall not weary the House with a potted lecture on the subject or references to the great philosophers and jurisprudents who define it. In my view, the rule of law means the system of law and order in our country, based as it is upon laws passed by a democratically-elected Government, enforced by impartial courts and voluntarily respected by law-abiding citizens.
I place emphasis upon the words "parliamentary democracy", "impartial courts" and "voluntarily respected". I do so to distinguish it from the rule of law which undoubtedly may be said to exist in a totalitarian State, but a State which has no democracy and no impartial courts, and which has a respect for the law which is achieved through fear. Paradoxically, the disintegration of our system may, and if we are not vigilant and


alive will, lead through anarchy to the imposition of that other rule of law. That would not be the kind of rule of law which the British people want. The threats to the rule of law of which I speak are threats to the rule of law as we in this country know it and revere it.
Hon Members will notice that my motion does not allege that. Her Majesty's Government have broken the law. Governments, through their majority in Parliament, make laws, and, as long as the due processes are followed, what is produced is, whether it is good or bad, the law. My attack on this Government is that while they are the body which must uphold the rule of law, too often the laws which they have passed or are passing are destructive of the hallowed traditions of that rule of law. They break down respect for law. They are partial to Labour Party political interests. They encourage unlawful behaviour by the people, which destroys the spirit of the rule of law. When I say, further, that they offend the constitution, I mean the constitutional behaviour of which a former distinguished Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, spoke when he said,
Constitutional behaviour is not the same thing as keeping within the strict letter of legality. Any constitutional lawyer will tell you that. The strict letter of the law requires the Royal Assent to every Act of Parliament. But any constitutional lawyer will tell you that the withholding of the Royal Assent would not nowadays be constitutional.
Constitutionalism demands the acceptance of certain conventions and practices which demand more than obedience to the law as such, and are demanded by national experience, loyalty and respect shown by one group to another, or to individuals, or to the country as a whole, and justified by utility.
Hitherto the British people have been great exponents of constitutionality, examples of which they are apt to call by rather homely names, like fair play, sportsmanship etcetra. It is at the heart of the British way of life, and if it were lost, I believe the rule of law would fly out of the window with it.
Too many Ministers are too frightened to offend their party supporters by defending what they may know to be right. How many men or women ar there of real courage in the governing party who will quite properly ask, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) in the debate on the Clay Cross Councillors Bill,
If they were not Labour councillors, would the Bill be going through today?

or say, like the Secretary of State for Education, who stood out against a deputation from his constituency on behalf of the Shrewsbury pickets,
As a matter of principle, I am not prepared to meet any delegation dealing with this matter. These two men broke the law. They were sentenced by the court and they made an appeal which failed. I fully support the Home Secretary's decision not to interfere. I believe it is absolutely essential at the present time to uphold the rule of law and order, and I deplore the attitude of so many of my fellow trade unionists who seem to be intent upon creating the impression that these two men are some kind of working class heroes.
It is not only the evil doers in the Government whom I condemn. It is also those good men who do not stand up, who do nothing, for, as Burke said,
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
My theme, then, is this. Her Majesty's Government produce laws that offend the rule of law as we know it. They produce an attitude that is contemptuous of due process. They too seldom speak out in defence of the rule of law and sometimes they even speak out in attack on the rule of law. I go further and charge that the reason why there is this concept for the rule of law is that the Labour Party is over-dominated and controlled by those who advance a political creed whose interest it is to destroy the rule of law.
Let me deal first with the controllers of the Labour Party, for that will help to explain why that party does not uphold the rule of law. There are large numbers of hon. Members who are sponsored by trade unions. Some unions, presumably, have greater influence over hon. Members than have others. Some unions are more powerful than others. Some have a greater say at the Labour Party conference than others. Some make a greater contribution to Labour Party funds than others. Some unions, namely, the most powerful, those with the greatest financial muscle, and yet others that can bring industry grinding to a halt, are dominated by Communists or Communist sympathisers.
I can cite examples. Last year, the Transport and General Workers' Union gave £150,000 to the Labour Party and had 18 sponsored members. It produces 1 million votes at the Labour Party conference and had 10 out of 39 members


of its national executive either card-carrying Communists or Communist sympathisers. The Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers had 17 sponsored members and gave £134,000 to the Labour Party. It produced 985,000 votes at the Labour Party conference and had seven out of 13 members of its national executive Communists or Communist sympathisers.
The National Union of Mineworkers, with 19 sponsored Members, contributes £40,000 to the Labour Party and had 271,000 votes at the Labour Party Conference, and it had 14 out of 29 members of its national executive Communists or sympathisers. The Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs had five sponsored Members and 151,000 votes at the Labour Party Conference and contributed £23,000 to the Labour Party, and had 15 out of 23 members of its national executive Communists or sympathisers.

Mr. David Weitzman: I thought that the hon. Member believed in democracy. These people are democratically elected.

Mr. Lawrence: They are democratically elected, but the power that they exercise is out of all proportion to their numbers in the country and it is exercised at key points in the unions. It is exercised by virtue of their union's contributions to the Labour Party and, in view of the number of sponsored Members of Parliament, their opinions must to some extent be reflected in the House when the House decides matters arising out of questions of the rule of law.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): Would the hon. Gentleman give one specific instance in which this so-called dominance has been reflected in one breach of the rule of law in relation to sponsored Members of Parliament?

Mr. Lawrence: Yes, I certainly shall. That will be the gravaman of my speech.
We know that the unions are strong in the Labour Party and that Communists are strong in the unions. There are thus two questions to answer. First, what do the Communists want with the unions? Secondly, how great is their actual power in the Labour Party? As a Conservative

Member I find it not exactly easy to answer, and I may be accused of bias if I try. So let me say in their own words what the Communist want and, in the words of others who know better than I, what their power is.
We can do no better than start with Lenin who in 1922 wrote:
In 50 years
—that is 1972—
armies will no longer have much meaning for we shall have sufficiently corrupted our enemies before the conflict breaks out, so that the military apparatus at their disposal cannot be used in the hour of need.
I wonder what Lenin would have thought of our rule of law.
More recently, Mr. Mick McGahey, then the Vice-President of the National Union of Mineworkers and President of the Scottish mineworkers wrote in the Morning Star:
There are undoubtedly many miners who, so beset by financial worries, simply want a wage increase and see no political implications in what they are doing … But there are many miners now whose thinking transcends short-term economic gains, who have recognised the futility of trying to control the capitalist system from the middle by staying on it. It is the system the Government follow which concerns us. We shall therefore break stage 3 and we shall do all we can to bring the Government down. But these are incidents on the road, not the end of the road itself.
Describing his approach, he said,
I came to realise that we did not just want changes of Government but changes in society. The only party I could see advocating change was the Communist Party. Capitalism is an antiquated system that should be consigned to the dustbin of society and a new society created.
That is an approach that appals some moderates in both the unions and the Labour Party, and Mr. Tom Jackson, the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers, said,
I have seen statements coming from Executive members at the mineworkers who say, 'Look first we'll destroy stage 3 and then we'll destroy the Government and then well go on to the revolution'. I believe once it is commonly known that the fight is not about wages but about revolution the trade union leaders concerned will find there is nobody working behind them".
Unfortunately, that was not so. The moderate Mr. Jackson could not stop the drive of the Left wing extremists in the National Union of Mineworkers and as a result stage 3 was destroyed and with it the Government. Are we to assume


that those who brought that about are not anxious that we should go on to the next stage, revolution?
It is not just trade union moderates who are apprehensive, worried or perhaps even scared stiff—and I hope they are—of the influence of these people. It was in 1966 that the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that the Communists had at their disposal an efficient and disciplined industrial apparatus. He told us:
No major strike takes place anywhere in this country in any sector of industry in which the apparatus failed to show itself. Full time officers of the party
—that is, the British Communist Party which numbers about 30,000—
were ready to operate in any situation where industrial troubles were developing".
We have the authority of the industrial organiser of the Communist Party in Britain—and to some extent this answers the Minister's interjection—for saying what is the power of the Communists over the Labour Party.
Mr. Bert Ramelson said of the Communist Party that it:
could float an idea early in the year and it can become official Labour Party policy by the autumn.
That may have been boasting. However. there are few hon. Members who have had greater experience of Government or of the Labour Party than Lord George-Brown. He said in The Times of 9th December 1972:
We have been taken over. And we have been taken over by a collection of people who call themselves activists. We call them, equally politely, extremists. But they are for the most part people who don't believe in our way of life or in our social democratic outlook. Frankly I think they are just believers in destroying what exists … In each case the constituency party consists of half a dozen of the extremists who have moved in. And these fellows have now captured control of the Labour movement at every level; constituency parties, trade union branches, executives of the trade unions, the General Council of the TUC, the Labour Party National Executive and the Shadow Cabinet.
That is not me speaking, that is someone who knows far more about the workings of the Labour Party in Government and Opposition than I.
Have we not cause to be concerned about the influence that Communists and fellow-travellers have upon the

Labour Party and upon the Government? Is it absolutely absurd to conclude that, if that is the influence they have and if we know that they want to destroy society, some of the explanations for some of the activities of the Government which are destructive of society are to be found in the activities of these people?
I come now to talk, as I was invited to by the Minister, about the effect that that influence has upon the rule of law. I can cite a recent example of failure to speak up. I have given examples of the Secretary of State and others, and there are many, but unfortunately not enough hon. Gentlemen who will speak up. Where was the speaking up when the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress allowed the former head of the KGB to visit this country, causing the widest possible offence to vast groups here? Where was the speaking up and the condemnation from the Government on that occasion? I know that it would not be easy to stop, but what we needed were some words. They were few and far between from the Government.
As a second category of threats to the rule of law I come to verbal attacks by Ministers on that rule. There is the evidence of the Secretary of State for Industry who in 1972 praised the imprisoned dockers. They had been imprisoned according to the due processes of law. It hardly bestows great respect upon the system if those who are leaders of the country—although the right hon. Gentleman was not then a Minister—praise such people in such terms.
Then there was the Secretary of State for Employment who at the time of May Day 1973 officially supported the national strike against the Conservative Government's prices law. That was a law passed by Parliament. It ought to have been respected. Perhaps in due course another Government could say that they would repeal it. Officially to support a strike in those circumstances is a form of attack upon the rule of law. To go on to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that the judges were stretching the law to suit reactionary attitudes, to describe, as I heard the right hon. Gentleman describe in this House, the judge in the Industrial Relations Court as "trigger happy", is to pour scorn upon the system which upholds the rule of law.

Mr. Weitzman: Why not?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Member has spent the best years of his life serving the rule of law. How can it be right for the leaders of our nation to criticise judges who cannot answer back in circumstances when they were only doing their duty? How can it be right for the hon. and learned Gentleman to imply that that is no attack upon the law? When the nation's leaders start criticising the judiciary, is it any wonder that their followers have no respect for the rule of law?
There is a third category of attack upon legislation—the attack on the Industrial Relations Act. The logic behind the Conservative Government's Industrial Relations Act was to a large extent shared by the Labour movement in the mid-1960s. The Donovan Commission produced a report which formed the basis of legislation which the Labour Party in Government were to introduce.
The Labour Government did not introduce it, but only because the unions, which are the power in the party, said, "No, we will not have it." Then a Conservative Government came into power and began implementing much the same sort of legislation. They might have reasonably expected some support from the Labour Party, or, at least, perhaps not the sort of attack from the Labour Party that was launched upon that legislation. But of course the Labour Party found no difficulty in turning itself upon its head and it opposed with demoniacal fervour the legislation which a few months earlier it would have been perfectly happy to introduce.

Mr. Weitzman: Is the hon. Gentleman now supporting the Industrial Relations Act? Does he want it back again? Is his party prepared to reintroduce it?

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a serious intervention. I am not describing the value of the policy in the light of all that has happened. There was nothing wrong with the basis of that legislation. The Labour Party would do well to remember that it saw little wrong with it when it suited it. That is not the point I am making. The hon. and learned Gentleman should not try to distract me from the point, which I believe he appre-

ciates. It is that the law is the law. It can be altered in due course by another Government but campaigns can scarcely be mounted against the law by a party which later comes to the House and asks, "What threat to the rule of law?"
There was not just a verbal attack, not just marching in the streets. We know that the essence of that Act was to secure the registration of unions. If they registered, certain tax concessions were granted. It is difficult to imagine that something like the following did not happen when the Labour Party mounted its attack on the Industrial Relations Act. No doubt certain unions approached certain members of the Labour Party and asked, "If the Labour Party get back into power what will happen to the money we are losing because tax concessions are not being given to us?". It is not too farfetched to suppose that somewhere at some time some highly-placed person or other in the Labour Party replied, "If we get back into power we will give you back the money which you lose by not registering". What the unions who did not register were saying was, "We will adopt this course of action knowing full well the penalties we suffer by doing so but we want the penalties waived as soon as you get back into power". Therefore, it was no surprise when a promise was made in the Labour Party manifesto to pay back the £10 million. It was no surprise when, in due course, legislation appeared before the House. It was no surprise when that legislation was passed.
But what possible justification is there, within the structure of the rule of law, for a potential Government to say to the unions "Support us in our attack on the Industrial Relations Act. Get us back into power and we shall give you back your money"? That savours of the sort of squalid deals that we have heard that President Nixon made in the United States with certain companies. Can we believe that no private assurances were given? I do not think that we have heard it publicly denied that no such assurances were given.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In case anyone ever reads the hon. Gentleman's speech, may I make a public denial now. No assurance was ever contained in a Labour Party manifesto. An assurance was produced after we came into power


last March as a result of discussions within the Government. There was no pre-election pledge to any trade union in respect of the £10 million repayment.

Mr. Lawrence: I accept that denial from the Minister. I accept that as far as he knows that is absolutely and completely true. I do not dispute that. However, it makes it even the more strange that the Government felt bound to introduce legislation when there was no pledge in the Labour Party's manifesto and when they were not committed to introduce it. Of course, that is not the point that I wish to make. My point is that what happened was an encouragement. It was an interference with the process of law and it was an encouragement t,.; future law breakers.
I turn to another example—namely, Clay Cross. This is a subject that will be well known to Labour Members. They will have cause to remember it all the days of their political lives. I shall briefly review the circumstances because, like all these causes célèbres, people tend to forget exactly what happened.
The Housing Finance Act placed a duty on local councils to determine fair rents and to make progressive increases towards fair rents by implementing increases of up to £1 a week for the first year and then subsequent increases in subsequent years. When the fair rent was ascertained, councils were to repay any excess and to make rebates to tenants from rents with reference to their "needs and resources". The effect of non-implementation of the Act was to save most tenants from having to pay an increase of £1 a week and some from increases of much less than that. It also meant that 160 tenants in Clay Cross would have to pay more rent than they would otherwise have been required to pay through loss of the rebate which was open to them under the Act.
In September 1972 the Clay Cross Council resolved not to implement the Act. It instructed its officers to take no steps to put the Act into operation. The councillors' argument was that they had been elected on the express promise not to carry out the requirements of the Act. The council's clerk, the chief officers and the Minister warned the councillors of the consequences of defying the Act. In November 1972 the Department of the

Environment notified Clay Cross and other councils of orders declaring them to be in default. They were given 16 days in which to instruct their officers to make provisional assessment of a fair rent for every council house and to prepare a scheme of rent allowances for private tenants. They refused to take that action.
The Minister was faced with four courses and he decided to introduce an order for an extraordinary audit. The district auditor was ordered to make the audit and he duly arrived in Clay Cross and began his work. The Clay Cross auditor considered the facts and heard the councillors' submissions. He decided that a loss of just under £7,000 had been incurred by their negligence and misconduct and he surcharged them. He said that there had been
a deliberate flouting of the law in furtherance of their political views.
In due course the councillors appealed to the High Court. The court held that the decision of the councillors constituted "negligence or misconduct" within the meaning of the Act, and that no matter how sincerely the councillors believed in the course that they had followed, no matter how strong were their feelings of moral obligation and no matter whether it was a matter of policy or politics, the inescapable fact was that the councillors had deliberately broken the law. It was, found that the deficiency found by the district auditor did not result from any failure by the Minister, who was under no obligation to appoint a housing commissioner. It was found that the loss arose from the councillors' decision to break the law.
In October 1973 the Labour Party Conference passed Resolution No. 191 on a show of hands. Labour Members will recall that a large part of the conference is constituted by the large and powerful unions. They have powerful influence and representation on the executive. The resolution read:
This conference deplores the lack of initiative shown by the National Executive Committee in failing to defend the Clay Cross Council in its fight against the Housing Finance Act. Conference urges the National Executive Committee to take all positive steps to defend the interests of the councils and to intensify the national struggle against this iniquitous legislation. Conference further agrees that upon the election of a Labour Government, all penalties, financial or otherwise, should be removed retrospectively from


councillors who have courageously refused to implement the Housing Finance Act.
The national executive, which included seven members of the present Government, resolved that the conference decision should be fulfilled. The Minister has said that no prior assurances were given as regards the £10 million, but that hardly applied to the Housing Finance Act and to the Clay Cross councillors.
In answer to a request from myself the Prime Minister was good enough to send me a transcript of what the Leader of the House said at the Labour Party Conference on 3rd October 1973. The right hon. Gentleman said:
let me say at once that Clay Cross is something rather special. It really is. I think everybody in Britain, in the Labour movement and outside, is full of sympathy and admiration for the stand that David Skinner and his colleagues have taken. It is an area of high unemployment, low wages. It is an area with very many problems. It is not true to say that the NEC has done nothing. It has given a great deal of advice to them, and it has also given a promise that the next Labour Government will remove all the disqualifications from them. But I believe that we have now got to go further than this in the case of Clay Cross, and so the NEC on Friday passed a resolution which says this: 'that this NEC shall consider ways and means of assisting councillors in their financial difficulties arising out of their refusal to implement the Housing Finance Act, and this will be done immediately after the conference.' But we want to go further than that, and I am going to recommend conference to accept Agenda Motion No. 191 with Amendments B and C which the mover and seconder have accepted, but not D.
He could have said: "We will do all we can to help. Of course, we have given certain undertakings but we cannot go any further than that. We cannot say anything which might encourage people to break the law. You will have to bear with me. We cannot possibly accept this conference motion."
Is that what he said? No. He said:
I am going to recommend conference to accept Agenda Motion No. 191. … We make this recommendation on this understanding. First that it refers to Clay Cross. I think conference will understand well why I am saying that. Secondly, that you leave it to us when the time comes to see how this can be implemented. We believe a way can be found of implementing it. Finally, I have got to say that the acceptance of this motion must not be taken by anybody to be an encouragement to any Labour Councillors anywhere to act unlawfully. We have gone as far in this as we possibly can. I believe everybody in the conference will understand it …".

What on earth could that speech possibly mean other than, "Do not start rioting in the streets. Let us have no violence. Do not break the law in that way. We shall see that you are all right when we get back into power. Just carry on refusing to implement the Housing Finance Act, and we shall see that you are all right when we get back".
The right hon. Gentleman did not actually say that, of course. But if he had been saying, as is often alleged, that there was no incitement there to carry on breaking the Housing Finance Act, why did he not say so? Why did not he say, "I must tell you that it is unlawful and that we cannot condone the continued breaking of the Act"? He said no such thing.
In due course, the Clay Cross councillors appealed. The case was again looked into to see whether they were law breakers. Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, sitting with two other very distinguished judges, dismissed the appeal. I quote from the report of the judgment which appeared in The Times:
It lay ill in the mouth of the councillors to say that the Minister had acted unlawfully. Each of them had deliberately broken the solemn promise which he had given when accepting office. Each had flagrantly defied the law. Each was determined still to continue to defy it, yet they complained that the Minister had acted unlawfully. If he had done so, the Court would not hesitate to say so. It would not tolerate the abuse of power by the executive arm of government. But there was none. The councillors by their conduct had presented a grave problem to all concerned in the good government of the country. The Minister could take action to see that the law was obeyed. He was the one to decide which of several courses was the best to take. So long as he acted in good faith his decision was not to be questioned. In two towns in Wales a Housing Commissioner had been appointed, but in Clay Cross the Minister directed an extraordinary audit. In every case it was for him to decide. If he had thought that if he directed an extraordinary audit the councillors would be disqualified there was nothing wrong in that. The men were not fit to be councillors. The sooner they were disqualified the better. If the only means of doing it was by an extraordinary audit, it was a lawful means to a legitimate end. … The attack made by the councillors on the Minister was entirely without foundation. The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The proceedings were vexatious. The councillors were seeking, by one shift or another, to escape the consequences of their own wrong-doing. The time had come when they must be told quite firmly that the law must be obeyed. Their disobedience could not be tolerated. They were disqualified. They must stand down. Others must be elected in their


place—others who would fulfil the duties which these eleven had failed to do. His Lordship trusted that there were good men to be found in Clay Cross ready to take over.
Those are the facts. In due course, this Government assumed office and began drafting a Bill. It is perfectly true that the Bill does not let off the Clay Cross councillors from the £7,000 liability. That is the deficit for which they have been surcharged up to the time at which the auditor went in and made his surcharge. But this is the sop which this Government have given to law and order. They have let off the Clay Cross councillors in respect of every item which should be surcharged after the auditor went in, and the sum of money involved is very substantial. The Government are also letting off the Clay Cross councilors from three and a half years of their disqualification. That is the Bill, and currently it is in Committee.
Let no one say that that is not interfering with the process of the law. The situation is not the same as it was in the Poplar days, in 1927, when Lansbury said, "I do not agree with this law. I will break it, and I will suffer the consequences and go to prison." This is the case of the Clay Cross councillors, who have many mouths in the Labour Party and in this House, saying, "We will break the law and our supporters, if not we ourselves, will want the consequences of our breaking the law to be swept to one side when Labour return to power." That is what is happening.
I say nothing, not because it is sub judice but because the Attorney-General is in the middle of giving his explanation in Committee, about whether he was right to give his advice and whether he stuck to it. I say nothing about that out of respect for the Attorney-General, although on Second Reading the Opposition asked for his resignation—indeed, I asked for the resignation of the Solicitor-General and of the Lord Chancellor as well. After all, the Law Officers are appointed to uphold the law against pressures on the Government. Those Law Officers cannot continue in office when the law is being threatened, attacked or hacked away.
What happened was that an undertaking was given by a Minister to the Labour Party Conference as a result of which

a number of councils carried on breaking the Housing Finance Act. Now they are to be let off. The only one which will not be completely let off is Clay Cross. The Clay Cross councillors will not be let off in respect of £7,000. However, there is to be a whip-round in the Labour Party. But the cost of all this letting off is about £1·5 million. If justice is justice, there should be a whip-round for that in the Labour Party. It should not be taken away from ratepayers in areas outside Clay Cross. In my view, it should not even be taken away from the council house tenants, because they were egged on by the Labour Party. If they had not been egged on, they would have set the money aside. But they were, and I cannot blame them. In justice, the Labour Party should pay, because this is a piece of Labour legislation which wrecks the rule of law.
I come to another matter where it is very difficult to say that the influence of the extreme Left in the Labour Party is not being shown. I refer to the case of the Shrewsbury pickets. Immediately I come to the rescue of the Minister of State and his Government. They have not given way to the Shrewsbury pickets' scream—

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Not yet.

Mr. Lawrence: —and all praise to them. Nothing that I say is intended to convey the impression that at no stage will this Government uphold the rule of law. That would be unfair and wrong. At some stages they are doing so, and no doubt we shall hear from the Minister exactly what those stages are. My criticism is that at every stage a Government should uphold the rule of law, and not just here and there.
In the case of the Shrewsbury pickets, again I hope that the House will forgive me if I take up a little time in order to explain the facts, because again the myth is growing that these are working-class heroes who should be let off if they break the law because they were doing it in the name of society and good trade unionism.
The truth is that in North Wales, Shrewsbury and Telford a number of incidents of unlawful picketing occurred on eleven dates. It was unlawful picketing because it was not peaceful and because it involved violence to people, violence


and damage to property and the intimidation of workers in order to compel them to stop working.
The two men, Tomlinson and Warren—the former being a shop steward with the Transport and General Workers' Union and chairman of the Wrexham Strike Action Committee, and the latter, Warren, being a shop steward with the UCATT and a member of the North Wales and Chester Strike Committee—attended a strike action committee meeting in Chester in August 1972 which decided to hire six coaches. On 6th September, the coaches took 250 or more pickets from various starting points, first to Oswestry and then on.
There was nothing wrong in that. As long as their picketing was to be peaceful, it was lawful. But was it peaceful?
On the first site overrun by the pickets, stones were thrown, windows were broken and equipment was overturned. Men in trenches were stoned, a bricklayer was hit on the head with a paint tin, a road roller driver was pulled from his machine and an iron bar was pushed into its engine. A lorry driver was made to leave the site and was threatened with a steel rod. The foreman had to fetch a gun to frighten the pickets off. The damage was in excess of £300.
At the second site the damage was over £500. A dumper and roller were overturned, kerb stones were shattered with a sledgehammer, two pickets put sand into the fuel tank of a chipping machine and its operator was threatened until he left the job.
On two other sites there was intimidation by shouting and threats. At one of them the pickets executed a pincer movement. They came on to the site shouting, "Kill the lump". Warren told the manager that it was a revolution, not a strike and "All lump bastards should be out of the trade". He addressed a meeting in the canteen and said "You can work if you want but you will be carried home in a pine box", meaning a coffin. At the other site pickets ran over the site shouting, "Kill the bastards; get the bastards off". Warren said that they were taking the industry over, and Warren was one of the pickets who was trying to overturn a shed.
At another site machinery was overturned, the canteen hut was stoned, invaded and smashed up. A compressor was tipped down a slope, narrowly missing a workman. Tomlin was seen attempting to force the door with a shovel.
At another site pickets entered like "a mad swarm", windows were smashed walls demolished and sand was put into machine fuel tanks. A 500-gallon fuel tank tap was turned on and workers were threatened. One man was hit on the forehead by a stone and the gash required stitches. Another had paint poured over him. Another, refusing to come down from scaffolding, was pulled from the ladder, hit on the back of the head and had to spend a week in hospital with concussion. Witnesses said that Tomlinson threatened them, ordered them off scaffolding and threw bricks at windows. The chief inspector, interviewing him afterwards, said that he made no reply to an allegation that he had admitted clobbering a brickie. Warren was identified as the leader of a group of pickets who were shouting, waving sticks and stoning men on the site.
Similar activities happened on the other sites and they were organised and planned by these two men. In summary, the case that was put against them was that at each site visited there was a display of violence, varying in degree, and intimidation. From the evidence of what occurred it could be inferred that there was a prior agreement, a conspiracy, to intimidate. There was evidence of the events leading up to the visit of the pickets to Shrewsbury and Telford and, in particular, evidence of the meeting of a strike action committee.
The defence—and witnesses were called—was that there was no talk of violence, force or intimidation at Oswestry; and that the meeting at Chester had been democratic and informal and had concluded that they should revisit Shrewsbury in greater numbers because there had been a report in the Press of the formation of an anti-picket force on building sites. All discussions were about peaceful and lawful picketing. There was no intention in the minds of the organisers to do anything unlawful. What happened on the sites "just happened" or "just broke out". Evidence to the contrary of Tomlinson's and Warren's involvement was denied.
That issue was put to the jury of 12 good men and true, and the jury rejected the men's case. There was an appeal against conviction, which was quashed. I will not weary the House with the way in which appeals are quashed when the various technicalities required are shown to have been fulfilled.
When it came to sentencing Tomlinson at the trial, the trial judge said:
I am satisfied that you, with Warren, were the most militant of those leading the pickets. There is no excuse for your conduct whatsoever. … You were violent: you did damage and you threatened violence. Your conduct was quite inexcusable and there are no mitigating factors I can find.
In sentencing Warren, the trial judge said:
I take no account of any previous convictions you have.
—he had one or two small ones—
I am satisfied you were the leader and prime mover in the invasion of the sites. You took part in violence and violence is far too prevalent in this country today. There are many who think, and apparently you are one of them, that if they are thwarted in any shape or form they can impose their views upon the citizens of this country by indulging in violence, and do so with impunity. You are no martyr. I regard you as arrogant, vicious and prepared to impose your views upon others by violence if need be. You have the power of speech and the power of leadership which you apparently used to ill purpose. You thought you could flout the law. You were wrong.
The Court of Appeal found no ground for interfering with those sentences.
It is clear that the jury found these men to have behaved like thugs. The law would be an ass indeed if it provided for no way in which people who behaved in that way on 11 different sites, on each of them on more than 30 separate occasions, could be convicted and appropriately punished.
I understand that perhaps these men were carried away with emotion and the rightness of their cause. That is not a reason—and has never been a reason—for breaking the law. It is not a reason now for hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches or supporters of the Shrewsbury pickets in the country to try to stop the law's operation. The law has operated, and it has been seen to have operated fairly. The law must in all circumstances be followed to its conclusion.

Mr. Michael English: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is short of supporters on his bench but he seems to be rehearsing a large number of facts. I am trying to ascertain his object. He seems to be saying that the Home Secretary should do exactly what the Home Secretary has clone, namely, not exercise the prerogative of mercy. What is the hon. Gentleman complaining about?

Mr. Lawrence: I am not entirely surprised that the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) does not understand the objects about which I am speaking, because he has only just walked into the Chamber. I am far advanced into my speech beyond the statement of my objects. My reason for referring to the Shrewsbury pickets is that there is substantial pressure from the Government benches and from the country and trade unions at large to free the pickets. All hon. Members have received letters from trade union representatives saying "Let the Shrewsbury pickets out. Interfere with the due process of law." Had the hon. Gentleman been here he would have heard that I am congratulating the Government on this occasion for so far holding firm on the rule of law.

Mr. Bowden: Apropos of what was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), did not many hon. Members on the Government side of the House take part in marches and lead groups into the House protesting against the imprisonment of the Shrewsbury pickets and demanding that the Home Secretary should release them? They are the guilty men.

Mr. Lawrence: I am most grateful for that most lucid interjection by my hon. Friend which fills in some of the detail I have not used.

Mr. Weitzman: Where in our constitution or our political life do we prevent people from making representations, howeved wrong, however misguided? People are entitled to make representations. The representations can be accepted or refused. The hon. Gentleman is saying that it is wrong for a Member of Parliament or a member of the public or a trade union to make representations.

Mr. Lawrence: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. That is not what


I am saying, as he knows. Of course it is right for representations to be made, and it will be right if the Government stand firm and refuse to interfere with the rule of law as they interfered with the rule of law on other occasions about which I have spoken.

Mr. Max Madden: As someone who has been present since the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which seems to be a very long one, may I ask him whether he can explain the reason for the delay over the serious matters he has described in such detail which took place on the sites when the people he has described were accompanied by a considerable number of police who had been told in great detail of the activities which were to take place on that day? Can he explain why there was such a delay between the events of that day, charges being brought and a court hearing taking place? Can he express an opinion on the propriety of prominent politicians commenting in public on such events at the Conservative Party annual conference? Does he not agree that all this—the delay in bringing the charges and the commenting of politicians on the events—lends substance to the suspicion that there were political motives behind the levelling of charges?

Mr. Lawrence: The answer to each of the hon. Gentleman's last three questions is "No". The men were tried by a jury. No doubt all those matters were brought to the attention of members of the jury, who would have had them at the forefront of their minds.
I am not arguing about the merits of the matter. I do not know all the details of the merits. I was not present at the hearing and I played no part in it. My point is different. Regardless of the merits—though, in passing, I observe that the jury found on the merits and that courts subsequently reconsidered the nature of the case—the law was properly enforced and the law should not be interfered with. So long as the Government refuse, which so far they have creditably done, to interfere with the law, so long will they be behaving responsibly.
Incidentally, it will be a test of the influence and power of extremists on the Labour Party and the Government whether in due course they relent. It will be a test, too, of the strength of will and

integrity of the Home Secretary, which is never in doubt. But we shall have to wait and see. I raise the matter because there is great pressure on hon. Members to break the rule of law in this respect.
I turn to a matter which is less contentious from a party political point of view, but it generates much heat. It has been ventilated already this week and I shall not therefore spend long over it. The referendum is a totally alien institution to our constitutional doctrines.

Mr. English: It is European.

Mr. Lawrence: The people who most want a referendum to be held are the anti-Marketeers, who want us to leave the EEC. The anti-Marketeers and the pro-referendum people range themselves against the CBI, NFU. our partners in Europe, the Commonwealth, the United States, the Conservatives, half the Labour Party and Labour Government and the Liberals, but are on the side of the Russians, who want us out of the EEC, the Communist Party of Great Britain, which wants us out, the National Front, which wants us out, and the extreme Left wing in some of the unions—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Luton, West) rose—

Mr. Lawrence: That fact may be explainable, and I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to explain it.

Mr. Sedgemore: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the radio report this morning that the Chinese Government wanted the United Kingdom to stay in the Common Market and, accordingly, had reported the Common Market debate which took place in the House this week but left out all the anti-Market speeches?

Mr. Lawrence: I am—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into great detail on the referendum. This is not a continuation of yesterday's debate. I have a fair idea of what he will refer to—the question of exemption from legal penalties, and so on—but I see no need for him to argue about who is ranged on one side or the other on the question of the referendum.

Mr. Lawrence: I defer to your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although it


is not my fault that there is an argument. I have allowed questions to be put to me—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone into great detail on the question of the referendum.

Mr. Lawrence: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I answer the intervention of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore)? I am no great expert on Chinese matters, and I am not a defender of their system, but one explanation of China's support could be that, as Russia favours our leaving the EEC, they naturally take the opposite view. An explanation which I favour is that the Chinese have become friendly with Britain because of the great personality and charm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman has Sir Oswald Mosley on his side, too.

Mr. Lawrence: There are certain odd individuals on both sides, which militates against my point, but not substantially because it is a question of the power blocs. The extremists in the unions are in favour of our leaving the EEC and they are also pro-referendum.
Many of us think that the referendum, apart from being a ridiculous charade, is a very dangerous interference with the fabric of our constitution, because once we have broken into the fabric people will go on asking for the holding of referenda whenever it suits them and Governments will not resist the request. So we go down the slippery slope.
The referendum is such a novel introduction into our procedures, and it has been suggested so many times, that I wonder whether the Government genuinely believe that a referendum is a good thing. We have heard much this week about the reasons for it. The general belief among Opposition Members is that the Government propose to hold a referendum, against their will, to patch up the rift between the Right wing and Left wing of the Labour Party. Yesterday we heard some stirring words from the Leader of the House about how apt and appropriate a referendum was. But earlier leading members of the Government had spoken strongly against

a referendum. In May 1970 the Prime Minister said,
I think it is right that Parliament should take the decision.
He said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup, who was then Prime Minister,
The Prime Minister said that I oppose a referendum, and I agree.
In 1969 a Ten-Minute Bill was introduced which proposed a referendum on the EEC and among those who voted against it were a number of the Government.
Why has there been a change in the Government's attitude? Is it because of the great merits and attraction of a referendum? I think the answer is "No". A referendum is what the extremists in the unions, with power in the Labour Party, want because it will enable us—hopefully they think, hopelessly I think—to come out—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to show how he relates his detailed comments on the referendum—a matter of which the House has disposed—to the question of support for the rule of law.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall endeavour to do that shortly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My theme is that there has been an attack on the rule of law and that the reason for it is pressure from extremists. I am giving another example of pressure from extremists which brought about a change in the Government's attitude and which interferes with constitutionality as I defined it in quoting the Lord Chancellor, which is part of the fabric of the rule of law. You will be pleased, Sir Myer, to hear that I do not want to take up all the time because other hon. Members wish to speak. You will be pleased to know that your observation has brought me to the end of my observations on the referendum.
I have discussed some examples of how this Government have shown varying degrees of contempt for the concept of the rule of law and I have advanced some reasons for that. I look forward to hearing speeches which show where I am wrong—we can all be shown that—or where I am right. We on this side quite understand the difficulties of Labour Members in speaking out too loudly in favour of the rule of the law but only if


they do is there a chance for the rule of law as we know it to survive.
There is great lawlessness in our society at present, as is shown by the increasing amount of crime and the growing number of cases before our courts. We can see the breakdown of discipline in our schools and at football matches. There is less respect for other people's property and freedom. Respectable farmers and fishermen are coming near to breaking, if they do not actually break, our laws. We see the growth of demonstrations often leading to violence and assault on the police.
We may, if we are not careful, see a growth of the hitherto law-abiding citizen's refusal to pay his rates and taxes. We can see the increasing disrespect in which our public institutions are held. We can see on the decline the regard in which Parliament and its members may once have been held, and, with that decline, a greater contempt for the work we do and the laws we pass.
This lawlessness is spreading from the top, from us here in Parliament. We are the leaders. If we do not set an example of respect for the rule of law, why should we expect others to show it? Above ordinary Members, at the top, are the Government. It is for the Government in all they do to uphold the rule of law. Doubtless because they are no longer their own masters and their leadership is weak and flabby this Labour Government have begun to destroy respect for the rule of law. But from that destruction will follow the destruction of our society as we know it. That is my indictment and the reason for my motion.

2.53 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I have listened with great interest and considerable patience to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who spoke for well over an hour. I compliment him on the enormous amount of work that he put into his speech, but I got the impression that he suffers from considerable hysteria with his talk about Reds under the bed, Communists, and all sorts of terrible things in the Labour Party. In time, as the years advance, I am sure that he will learn considerably better than that.
I hope that the convictions and arguments that he has expressed are not held by the majority of his party. He talks about Communists. We have reason to believe that there may be a certain Fascist element among the Tories, even a National Socialist element. People who are National Socialists now were formerly Tories.
The hon. Member's mistake when he talks about the rule of law is that he does not seem to recognise that although we all have to obey the law it is open to anyone to put forward any argument or make any representation. Even a Member of Parliament is entitled to do so. To suggest that because Members of Parliament or unions or deputations have put forward certain views they are encouraging breaches of the law is absurd, on the face of it.
The hon. Member gave a lot of elaborate figures about Communists in trade unions. He is presumably a democrat, even though a Tory. He surely recognises that it is the right of people to elect anyone in their union, whatever his political views. Why does he protest about that? He may not like Communists; I do not like them, either. He may not like their views; nor do I. That does not mean that a Communist should not be allowed to state his views and have them considered. We in the Labour Party have a proud tradition of containing not only moderates but also extremists. However, we are able to see different sides of the case and argue them out—unlike the rather sterile Tory Party.
In his condemnation of this Government for having, as he put it, encouraged breaches of the rule of law, the hon. Member mentioned only two specific instances—the Shrewsbury pickets and Clay Cross. I do not know what his complaint is about the Shrewsbury pickets. Is he denying the right of Members of Parliament, deputations or trade unions to put forward their views? The fact remains that the Home Secretary has clearly said, "I shall exercise the Royal Prerogative only in certain circumstances. If new evidence is brought forward which justifies me, I shall do so, but otherwise I uphold the decision of the court." So what is the complaint about the Shrewsbury pickets? The hon. Member spent a long time detailing what had happened


to these pickets, dealing with the trials and the judgment of the court. But in the end his argument did not have a leg to stand on.
His case about Clay Cross was a repetition of what he has said in Committee. I am afraid that I must trouble the House with a repetition of what I said in Committee in answer to him. Clearly, his arguments are utterly wrong. In Committee he tried to suggest that the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill constituted a threat to the rule of law. Quite the contrary. In that case, the judgment of the courts about the surcharge on the Clay Cross councillors is being upheld. The hon. Member called it a sop, but the judgment and therefore the rule of law is being upheld in that case. The judgment on the rule of law was not and is not interfered with in the Bill. The Government are dealing in difficult circumstances with councillors who may be surcharged further.
The hon. Gentleman told us about the Housing Finance Act 1972—a pernicious piece of legislation, which was bitterly resisted by many local councillors. I remind him that at the last moment Section 62 (4) was brought in. That deals with application to the Secretary of State. I gave an instance in Committee, and I repeat it now, of the London borough of Camden. The council made an application to the Secretary of State under that section and was kept waiting for some time. It then got a decision. After that it applied to have the decision revised. It was again kept waiting. Time passed, and there was default regarding the service of notice. The result, as in other cases, was that the council was in default. Now, 400 councillors may have to meet a surcharge of £1½ million. The conduct of local affairs over a long period would be disrupted unless some action were taken. The Tory Government—

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Weitzman: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he has taken all this time, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
The Tory Government, faced with the same dilemma, would have had to act in the same way. The hon. Gentleman, even

in his long speech, has not mentioned that if there was a breach of the rule of law by the Labour Government there was equally a breach of the rule of law by Tory Governments.
There are ample precedents, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say in criticism of them. They were quoted on Second Reading of the Housing Finance Bill, and in Committee. The Poplar case is a typical example of a precedent in 1927, when there was a clear decision by the House of Lords that 97 councillors were in default and could have gone to prison. Yet the Tory Government removed that default.

Mr. Ian Percival: I am anxious that the record should be accurate. I wonder when the hon. and learned Gentleman last read the case of Roberts v. Hopworth, to which he is referring. I read it this morning. In that case the district auditor expressly disclaimed that there was any suggestion of negligence or misconduct. Furthermore, it was accented from start to finish that the councillors concerned had exercised their discretion bona fide believing that the law authorised what they did.

Mr. Weitzman: I read the case two days ago, but it is still within my recollection. The point was clearly made by the Attorney-General when he quoted from it. I should not quote it otherwise, but I shall do so. My right hon. and learned Friend quoted the words of Mr. Chamberlain:
In any case, it is not going to be any satisfaction to the injured ratepayers that 97 persons should go to prison, because, for the most part, the sums in question are not small sums, but they are very large, and the ratepayers would not be one penny better off if the penalty were exacted.
If there were any question of a judge in a lower court having doubts, we would be bound by the judgment of the House of Lords which was clear in regard to the matter. Therefore, on that judgment the councillors were in default. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman's interjection was completely idle.
There is, in addition, the Merthyr case, and the precedents are there. One may pick faults, but they are there. Never during my happy enjoyment of membership of this House have I heard any member of the Tory Party say how disgraceful


it was of the Secretary of State for Wales to interfere in the Merthyr case or to condemn the Tory Government for a breach of the rule of law.
The suggestion has been made that the removal of disqualification would be a breach of the law. In my view, that clearly is not so. The disqualification is not retrospective. The Clay Cross councillors will have served a period of disqualification until legislation removes it. Why is it wrong to do that?
On Second Reading I said that the court would take account of mitigating circumstances. The Clay Cross councillors were not criminals. They were elected to serve their constituents and they took a strong, hostile attitude to an Act of Parliament which they considered unjust. They were wrong in law. They have suffered the penalty of liability to a surcharge and a period of disqualification. That is their punishment for disobeying the law. Having regard to their sincerity and the belief that they were acting in the interests of those who they represented. I believe that it is right that the penalty should be mitigated, and mitigated in the way proposed in the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill. There was no question of personal benefit on the part of the Clay Cross councillors.
When talking of the rule of law, surely we must remember that Parliament is supreme. It makes the law. It can do or undo any law. Of course we must respect the rule of law as it exists and see that it is obeyed.
The issue about what has been called the Clay Cross Bill was put succinctly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in these words:
The issue is a different and more complex one. It is rather how we apply the rule of law, and how we apply it with fairness and compassion, and yet without weakening its strength, to circumstances in which many responsible citizens have without doubt acted unlawfully—not, I believe for their personal benefit, but rather under the pressure of opinions deeply and sincerely held, and in the deep and sincere belief that the law which they were called to administer was a bad law and an unfair law … bad and unfair in particular … because the long-established power of local authorities to fix rents for their tenants was removed from them all—good and bad councils alike—and handed to an unaccountable body."—[Official Report, 24th March 1975; Vol. 889, c. 154.]

The motion is entirely misconceived and should be rejected. This Government, as indeed the Labour Party, are just as ready to uphold the rule of law as any previous Government and all their actions have shown that to be so.

3.7 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on having brought the motion before the House. All of us, whatever our views, must deplore the very poor attendance this afternoon. There may be some excuse, in that a great number of hon. Members may have thought it unlikely that this motion would be reached and that it was more likely that the important motion on public health would have taken up the whole day.
This is always the difficulty that hon. Members face. On a Friday we are invariably expected to be in our constituencies, fulfilling a wide range of constituency engagements. As, on occasion, these have been booked well in advance, it is difficult for us to break our engagements and be in the House.
I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), because he is a senior Member of the House and widely respected on both sides. When he accused my hon. Friend the Member for Burton of being Reds-under-the-bed-minded in the light of what he presented, the hon. and learned Gentleman was unfair. What my hon. Friend was saying throughout much of his speech was that it has been shown over the past few years, particularly during the years that I have had the honour of being a Member of the House, that far too many hon. Members on the Government side have not been prepared to uphold the law in what they say and what they do.
I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was present in the House to hear the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) in the debate on our membership of the European Economic Community. I shall quote some words spoken by the hon. Gentleman because they refer directly to the theme of the motion and of the speech of my hon. Friend the


Member for Burton. The hon. Member for Ladywood said:
I will say something else which will not be the least popular but which needs to be said. If we are to be told about the value of parliamentary sovereignty, let me ask some of my hon. Friends this: if the will of Parliament is now so vital to them, if parliamentary sovereignty matters so much to them that they cannot bear to see it abridged by any regulation, why was it that instead of campaigning to change the law, which is proper, so many of our party when in Opposition wished to, and did, defy the law. …
Some of us who really believe in parliamentary sovereignty, against all its challenges, have felt lonely people in the Labour Party in recent years."—[Official Report, 8th April 1975; Vol. 889, c. 1038.]
That is the view of a moderate Member on the benches upon which the hon. and learned Gentleman sits, but I have to tell him that many of his hon. Friends would be far happier in what they say and the beliefs they hold if they were in the Communist Party rather than the Labour Party. It takes great courage and honesty to damn one's own colleagues in the way the hon. Member for Lady-wood did in that speech, but what he said was true, and had to be said.
There is no doubt that over the past 30 years—I hope that at least all of us here today will regret it—respect for the law and for the upholding of the law has fallen considerably, and Members of Parliament—those who are here now and those who have been Members since the war—must take a substantial share of the responsibility for that. On too many occasions we have pressed through legislation which has not been sufficiently though out, and we have done so without appreciating what its long-term effects would be upon the people.
I am not a member of the legal profession, but I am sure that the many hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House will agree when I say that the legal profession as a whole has had enormous difficulty in absorbing the constant changes in the law and the number of Acts which we have pumped through during the past 10 or 15 years.
However, the essence of the matter is that once Bills are passed and become the law of the land no one has the right to decide which of them he will obey and which he will not obey. There can be no justification for any Member of

Parliament or citizen saying that because he regards a law as a political law he will choose not to observe or obey it. Yet that attitude and approach—that what are called political laws need not be obeyed—has been nurtured and in many cases openly supported by hon Members on the Government benches.
What is in some ways even more tragic is that many groups and organisations as well as individual citizens have seen ethers who have been powerful enough to take action which, even if it did not break the law, certainly bent it and went against the spirit of the law, succeed in their objectives. We have seen Governments give way. Indeed, we have seen Governments destroyed.
In these circumstances, other groups of people who felt that they had a genuine case or a real grievance, after trying to have their case heard or their grievance remedied—perhaps through the House or through their local council—but having failed in that effort, themselves now say, "What else can we do except take action which is really outside the law?"
We have had an example of that in the past few weeks, in the action of the fishermen who blocked many of our ports, including one in my own county of Sussex. As a group, the fishermen are independent, sturdy-minded and law-abiding citizens, but they reached a point at which they felt so desperately about their case, feeling that they could not get a hearing from the Government and could not get the action they needed from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they decided to take action which was without doubt outside the law.
I have the utmost sympathy with the fishermen's case but I condemn the action they took, which was outside the law. Once we start on this dangerous path it will have no ending. There can be no justification for any group, whether it be an organised trade union, the miners, groups of ratepayers, fishermen, students or squatters, to break the law. If they do so they must take the consequences and they should be condemned by every hon. Member and by the Government.
It is tragic that some political groups have a vested interest in undermining the law. Those groups know that they will never succeed in gaining power in this House through the ballot box, and


they therefore seek to create conditions of chaos and anarchy in which they hope that their political point of view will thrive and succeed. The sad thing is that when a group decides to take the law into its own hands or to act irresponsibly it is so often the innocent law-abiding citizens who suffer.
Let me give an example. If a group of squatters moves into a property belonging to a local authority because that property is empty for a period, waiting to be renovated, repaired or redecorated, those squatters are inevitably affecting the housing position of people on the housing list in that local authority area. Those people will have waited patiently and obeyed the law but see their chance of being rehoused delayed by this irresponsible and illegal action.
I was utterly disgusted at recent statements by student leaders who said that they intended to hold a nation-wide campaign to encourage squatting—in effect, to encourage law-breaking—and thereby harm innocent law-abiding citizens who are due to be rehoused by local authorities.
I turn to the question of the operation of the law by the courts and the sentences and fines imposed. Time and time again there is real anger by the public when a court imposes a fine or a short sentence which is completely unrelated to the vicious crime committed. The Government should look at the way in which the courts have acted—not that they can in any way interfere with the courts—and consider whether they should introduce legislation which sets down more firmly the penalties, prison sentences and fines for certain crimes. Time and time again people who commit crimes of violence and robbery get off with a fine or a very short prison sentence. The law protects the young, the old and the defenceless, and failure to uphold the law by any hon. Member and by the public can lead only to anarchy and the law of the jungle.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I rise to speak as a pillar of the British Establishment. Since I came down from university about 13 years ago I have been a civil servant, working for Conservative and Labour Governments, a barrister, and

now a Member of Parliament. I suppose I can therefore modestly say that the whole of my adult life has been given over to seeking to uphold the fabric of our society, its values and its principles.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) showed a degree of political and philosophical illiteracy that was alarming even for a Conservative. His basic mistake was to associate the values and principles of the Conservative Party with the values and principles of the British people. Nothing could be further from the truth. From his speech—he gave examples of it time and time again—he seemed to resent free speech, to have a contempt for civil liberties and to deny the rights of Members of Parliament and the people to seek to change our society.
As a member of the National Council for Civil Libertes, I would, any day of the week, assert the rights of every person in this country to seek to change the values of our society. We live in a time when people are questioning the law and its institutions. Sometimes we confuse the fact that they question those institutions with questioning the rule of law itself. Deference in our society is breaking down, and it is only natural that people should question both the law and its institutions as well as all the other institutions of the British Establishment.
People have a right to question the values and prejudices of those who both make and administer the law. They have a right to ask whether it is true that most of the judges come from a narrow background and a small class. They have a right to ask whether it is correct that most of the juldges should, as a matter of fact, support one political party. They have a right to ask whether it is correct that the magistrates should be chosen on an open and blatant political basis.
If the people who administer the law come from a narrow background and a small class, it is inevitable that people will question some of their decisions. It is right that they should do so. Only recently we have seen a learned judge attack barristers for having the temerity to put their clients' case. People have a right to ask, "If that is what the judge says what am I expected to think about the rule of law?" If we get a better standard from those who administer the


law, they can expect people to respect it that much more.
I stand here to uphold the rule of law. Only this morning I received from one of my constituents a copy of a letter which he had written to the borough treasurer of Luton. I shall not give the name of the constituent, because I have not been able to contact him to ask his permission.
He says:
In settlement of the above,"—
that is his rate demand—
I enclose a cheque for £64·30 which represents an increase of 25 per cent. less 2½ per cent. discount on the 1974–75 figure of £52·76.
He goes on to say that he is not paying the rest of his rates. I am not sure why he sent me a copy of the letter, or whether he knew that I was going to participate in the debate. I certainly did not know when I opened the letter this morning.
I shall not make that constituent a martyr. I deplore the fact that a constituent of mine writes to me and tells me that he will not pay his rates. I am not impressed by his further comment that
I am an ordinary family man and law-abiding citizen.
That citizen is now openly flouting the law. I would have had more respect for him if he had stated in his letter which of the services of Luton he would like to see taken away. Would it be education? Would he like to see garbage piling up in the streets, or to see the hospitals close down and the sick dying?
There is a movement in this country for people not to pay their rates, and there are people in authority supporting that movement. If we get that sort of attitude towards public expenditure, the services of our towns and cities will break down. We shall have anarchy and social unrest. I condemn it in the strongest possible way.

Mr. Percival: I should like the hon. Member's comment on this point: at the moment we are putting through Parliament a Bill relieving councillors who openly defied the law of the consequences of so doing. Does it surprise the hon. Member that his constituent now seeks to flout the authority of councillors?

Mr. Sedgemore: I intend to refer to the Clay Cross case when I deal with the more philosophical aspects of the problem.
It so happened that it was also this morning—this appears to be law-breaking day in Luton—that I had a letter from the Luton and District Chamber of Trade
Addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it has a paragraph that looks innocuous enough but is not. It says:
The continued disregard of minority interests will inevitably lead to a break down in co-operation between Government and governed.
That does not sound all that bad, but what lies behind it? I know what lies behind it. It is the threat that if the Government do not meet the wishes of the Luton and District Chamber of Trade and do not do what small businesses want them to do, those concerned will not fill in their income tax forms or their VAT forms and will openly flout and break the law.
What Opposition Members must realise is that the biggest and one of the most dangerous movements in this country, and in most other Western countries, for breaking the law is the Poujardeist movement, which has dangerous and serious Fascist elements. I would name some of these people, and I include the President of the Luton and District Chamber of Trade. The hon. Member for Burton could have made a speech identical to his. I deplore that form of moth-eaten McCarthyism, which can only encourage people to rise up and break the law and disregard the values and principles of our society.
I move from the problems of Luton and the mean-minded attitudes of the Luton and District Chamber of Trade to the general philosophical issue.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Sedgemore: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member spoke for an hour and 20 minutes, and some of my hon. Friends wish to speak.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) is upholding the rule of the House.

Mr. Sedgemore: From the speeches of Opposition Members I got the impression that there were some people who thought that the human conscience could be legislated out of existence. Some


believe that with a piece of legislation Jesus Christ would not have done or said what he did. Some believe that most of the great movements for progress could have been stopped by legislation and that it would have been desirable to have stopped those movements for progress and change.
Nobody can say that breaking the law is simple, or an easy business, or that it should be encouraged from these benches. What can be said—Opposition Members do not seem to realise it—is that ultimately conscience is more important than the rule of law; that in the last resort people must do what their consciences dictate and be prepared to take the consequences.
I come to the subject of the Housing Finance Act. I am a lawyer and I voted in the Wandsworth Council not to implement the Housing Finance Act. It was not a decision that I took lightly. Every law that has ever been passed or ever will be passed puts an obligation on the individual to weigh what he considers to be the merits and demerits, to weigh the value of the society that basically depends upon people keeping the law. On almost every occasion he will inevitably come to the conclusion that he must obey the law. But there will certainly come times, as there should have come times in Nazi Germany, when a citizen must say, "I shall not obey this law. It affronts my conscience, human dignity and the human spirit." No legislation will get rid of that.

Mr. Bowden: That was in a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Mr. Sedgemore: That is the authoritarianism, the totalitarianism which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) supported in his speech.

Mr. Bowden: It is outrageous of the hon. Gentleman to relate democratic Government in this country, where hon. Members are elected by their constituents, with a régime like Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalin's Communist Russia. There is no comparison whatever, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Sedgemore: We have to look at the law and say to ourselves that if, in the last resort, we cannot do what the law demands, we must break it. I can see nothing wrong with that. But we must

be prepared to take the consequences. It is no good deciding to break the law and then saying, "Please do not do anything to me, let me off because basically I am a law-abiding citizen." If a person decides to break the law after a close examination of his political, social or moral beliefs, I can see nothing wrong with that decision.
Let me turn now to the Housing Finance Act. Rightly or wrongly—Conservative Members, together with some of my hon. Friends, will say wrongly—I came to the conclusion that it was a class-conscious piece of legislation, to implement which would have meant that I had to welsh or renege on the promises I had made to the electorate. It was a piece of legislation which would have made me do something that contradicted all of my political beliefs. I therefore voted that the Act should not be implemented.
I was perfectly prepared to take the consequences of that decision. Whether we live in a form of democracy, Hitler's Nazi Germany or Stalin's hated Soviet Russia, I do not see how it can be argued that no matter what laws are passed and no matter how offensive they are to the human spirit, no one has a moral right to break them, in any circumstances.
What is the law? Ultimately it is an expression of moral beliefs. The law is a form of morality, and an important one at that. But it is not the only one. If a person is asking himself whether he should pay his rates I do not believe that he has a good argument for breaking the law. His only reason for doing so is some cheap personal financial gain. If some small business man in Luton is considering refusing to fill in his VAT forms because the Chancellor will not reduce VAT from 8 per cent. to 6 per cent. I believe he has no right to take such action, because it is for some small, cheap and nasty personal gain, as opposed to the general public interest.
Hon. Members may say that my point on the Housing Finance Act was too narrow, and was not really that sort of issue. I would have respected that view if they had said that I had taken the wrong decision on the wrong issue. But if a person takes a certain view on the wider issue, in the last resort this House must assert the primacy of conscience over the rule of law.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is most unusual for the Chair to intervene on a Friday to ask for brief speeches, but I hope that hon. Members will allow the Minister some time in which to reply.

3.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: I will be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had no intention of speaking but some comments of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) must not be left unchallenged. Rarely have we heard a more blatant case of double standards, rarely a more class-conscious argument accusing others of class-consciousness.
Although I did not hear the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I know that he was linking his remarks with the methods of the Communists. One of the things which ought to be noted in this country is how the Communists, who are perfectly free to pursue their political ideologies here as long as they do so openly and decently, are those who always most blatantly engage in double standards.
The issue about which the hon. Gentleman was speaking does not concern the merits of the Housing Finance Act, although I cannot refrain from making a comment on it, by way of illustrating what I say about double standards. The hon. Gentleman is like so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who pretend to stand for equality or as near as we can get to it. There is the great and noble battlecry of Karl Marx,
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel just as passionately about that as anyone else. Anyone who can subscribe to that view and yet describes the Housing Finance Act in the terms used by the hon. Member for Luton, West is causing an affront to human dignity and human decency. I just do not understand that approach. To adopt it one must have double intellectual standards of a degree that defy my comprehension. The Housing Finance Act called upon council tenants who could afford it to pay a little more so as to enable those who could not afford to pay the full amount to be relieved of part of the burden—
From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs.

How in the world anyone who professes to have any kind of intellectual honesty could call that a class-conscious Bill totally escapes me.
The hon. Gentleman is saying that we can ignore the laws which we do not like. This country must wake up to the fact that those are the laws that we must not ignore. It is very easy to comply with the laws with which we agree. The laws that we must bring ourselves to obey are those that we do not like.
Of course, we must use every possible democratic means to overthrow a Government which is making laws that we do not like. That is something close to the heart of all of my right hon. and hon. Friends. At the moment we are having to sit and watch a Government passing one law after another which not only destroy the chances of this country but which are so bad in quality as to be oppressive and to undermine the rule of law.
The hon. Gentleman says that there are times when a conscience is more important than anything else. Did it not occur to him, when facing the decision that he mentioned, that he made a solemn declaration when he assumed office to perform the duties of his office? Is he not aware that the only authority of a local authority is that given to it by statute, and that the duty of every local councillor is to carry out the statutes which give him the obligations and the authority of his position? That is what he solemnly declared to uphold. If he felt as he did, he had one clear course—namely, to resign. But to continue as a person with authority and to give himself the luxury of saying "I do not like that law. I do not want to resign. It is perfectly true that if I resign I could be true to all my obligations but I shall stick here and defy the law" is the very denial of all that he was purporting to say.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman spoke because it is an illustration of the double standards with which we have to deal in public life today. I hope that the public will take note of it.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): We are engaged upon a debate upon the rule of


law which is based on a somewhat sparsely worded motion tabled by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). I am bound to say that he made up for that sparsity with his speech. There was a time when I thought that he was in danger of talking out his own motion. I listened to his words carefully and there were times when I had difficulty in following his logic. At no stage did he answer the question that I asked him at the beginning—namely, where in the course of all his attacks upon the Government could he produce one iota of evidence that we had ever undermined the rule of law.
I propose to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's specific attempts to try to answer that question. I think it will be found at the end of the day by any fair-minded person that all that happened in today's speech from the hon. Gentleman was a party political harangue which had no substance in fact and which was totally unjust in most of its accusations.
This is not the first time that we have discussed this subject in the past 12 months. I seem to be here regularly on Fridays to reply to Private Members' motions from the Opposition designed to prove what is unprovable, namely, that this Government have undermined the rule of law.
In one of my speeches last year, I set out the philosophic basis on which I approached this matter. I repeat it shortly today. I take the view that the rule of law is the basis of a civilised society. I uphold that rule with all that I do. Equally, I understand that in a democratic society law must be based upon the consent of those to whom it applies and that we must therefore have in our minds when we legislate what will be the effect upon the people, quite apart from our right as a Government and as a Parliament to legislate as we wish. Unless we knit together our society in a basic assent to what we do in legislation, clearly we are in danger of undermining the rule of law.
On the last occasion that we discussed this matter, I made the charge that if there had been a Government in recent times who had abused that consent and had undermined the rule of law in the way now suggested, it was the last Conservative Government. What has hap-

pened in the period since this Government came to office is that we have managed to reduce the temper of the times considerably. There is now no longer the same kind of threat to our institutions which was clearly manifest in the final days of that Conservative Government.
There was one moment in the course of his speech today when the hon. Member for Burton suggested that the trade unions had managed to bring about the death of that Government. That Government was disposed of by the British electorate in a free ballot. It was the British people who passed judgment upon four years of Conservatism, and their judgment, like my own, was that the Conservative Government had come nearer to a breakdown in law and order by the actions that they pursued than any Government in recent times.
It is hypocrisy for any hon. Member who supported that Government now to accuse us of undermining law and order.

Mr. Michael Alison: Is the Minister seriously contesting that the strike by the National Union of Mineworkers in 1974 was not a political strike against the Government and against the law that Parliament had passed by a majority? If it was a political strike, how can the hon. Gentleman say that it was the fault of then Government that we were teetering on the brink of anarchy?

Mr. Lyon: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the strike was unlawful, why did not the Government of the day take steps to pursue through the courts any remedies which he says were available to them? What the coal miners did was in pursuit of a normal industrial dispute. They were in conflict with the National Coal Board and in conflict with the Government because the Government were behind the NCB. But they were pursuing a normal industrial dispute, and in modern times no Government have sought to say that for a man to withdraw his labour is unlawful or undermines the rule of law. Therefore, even if the hon. Gentleman were to suggest, as I have no doubt he does, that some of the miners' leaders were motivated by their political dislike of the Government, the fact remains that this was a normal industrial dispute in which the miners had a case. Let it be remembered, too, that it was a


case which was upheld by a committee appointed by the Prime Minister of that Government to make a fair adjudication of it. That committee said that the miners' case was entirely substantiated, and it was out of that finding that the settlement arose.
Let us get away from the party harangue of the February election last year and move to the specific charges made by the hon. Member for Burton.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry, I cannot give way again. As a result of the lengthy speech made by the hon. Member for Burton there is little time left for me to reply to what he said.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. Lyon: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I do not propose to give way again.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alison rose—

Mr. Lyon: With respect, I have answered the point put by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Burton went on to suggest that the Labour Party was in the grip of extreme members of trade unions who were themselves either Communists or fellow travellers. The statistics which he read out did not exactly prove his case. In no case was a trade union executive dominated by Communists, even on his wide definition of the term. What the hon. Gentleman has overlooked is that, although trade unions which are affiliated to the Labour Party are entitled to send members to the party conference, the members they send are all members of the Labour Party. If there are Communist members of their trade unions those members are not eligible to be members of the Labour Party conference. The decisions which the hon. Gentleman criticised were taken by the party conference attended only by Labour Party members, and the Clay Cross decision was taken not on a card vote but on a show of hands. Thus, all who showed their hands were members of the Labour Party and not card-carrying members of the Communist Party. Therefore the hon. Gentleman's basic tenet is false.
The hon. Gentleman went further and said that Members of Parliament who are sponsored by trade unions must be

under the influence of their trade unions. During the period in which Members of Parliament have been sponsored by trade unions that charge has been made more than once, and it has never been proved. Indeed, the independence of many of my colleagues who have been sponsored by trade unions now and in the past shows that they have never been told to vote or act in the House is a way which was inconsistent with their consciences.
As they are sponsored members of trade unions there are many times when their view on an issue is identical with that of the union. It would be strange if that were not so. I am a member of the Labour Party and there are many occasions when I find myself thinking about issues in the same way as are most other members of the Labour Party. That does not mean that the independence of these Members of Parliament is overridden by the financial subvention they may receive as sponsored members, any more than Opposition Members who are directors of companies are necessarily affected by that connection. Some of my hon. Friends may suspect otherwise, but I do not charge any Opposition Member with that. I hope that the hon. Member for Burton, on reflection, will think that it is an unjust charge to make against my hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about attacks by Ministers upon the judiciary and decisions of the courts. He put forward only two examples. The first was concerned with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry at a time when he was not a Minister in the Government and when all he was saying was that he understood and supported the motives of gentlemen who had decided to risk going to prison when they were involved in a dock strike in London.
The hon. Gentleman then turned to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in relation to Mr. Justice Donaldson which have been quoted in all the debates we have had on law and order but which do not indicate any undermining of the law. It would be a strange democratic society if the judiciary were entirely immune from criticism. The way in which the judiciary acts must be a proper topic for public discussion. I do not think that any member of the judiciary would object


to that. The objection is that it was considered that the tone and words used went beyond the level of normal, reasonable criticism of a judicial act. We all have our views about the proper level of taste in public discussion, but it cannot be said to undermine the rule of law that one's view about the proper standard of criticism involves certain words and that other people take a different view. That can only be a matter of taste. It can hardly be an undermining of the rule of law.

Mr. Percival: I challenge the hon. Gentleman on the question whether it is merely a matter of taste. If authorities criticise the courts, it is an invitation to others to disregard their authority, too. However, the hon. Gentleman has a lot to say and therefore I shall not pursue that matter. Does he personally think that the remarks of the Secretary of State about Mr. Justice Donaldson were acceptable and proper?

Mr. Lyon: I am responsible for the way in which I couch my criticism of the judiciary, which I criticise from time to time, and my right hon. Friend is responsible for his way. There was nothing in what he said which undermined respect for the law. What he was saying was that he disagreed strongly with the decision of a particular judge in a particular case which was not then current. In those circumstances, I defend his right to make such criticism as he made.
We have been attacked because when we were in opposition we supported strongly the opposition to the Industrial Relations Act. I cannot understand why that should be an undermining of the rule of law when it was something which we were sent to this place to do, any more than I would regard as an undermining of the rule of law the somewhat hysterical outburst of the Opposition about the present Government's Industry Bill. It must be the right of any hon. Member properly to criticise any legislation with which he disagrees. That is what we did on the Industrial Relations Act. No one has been able to prove that the Labour Party or the trade unions acted in any way unlawfully in their opposition to it. Many trade unions refused to register under the Act, but the Act gave them the right not to

register. Therefore, they were not acting unlawfully.
The question of the £10 million repayment to the trade unions has been well argued in the House. There was no suggestion prior to the February 1974 election that we would repay that amount of tax, but when we took office and considered the problem which had arisen for the unions it was considered just that it should be repaid. The basic reason for it was that the Conservative Government claimed that they never intended to take the money from the trade unions in the first place and, because of the action of the unions in not registering, it was an inadvertent result of the non-registration. Therefore, it did not seem to us unjust that the unions should get back £10 million worth of tax, which would come out of their pension funds in any event, which it was never intended should be taken from them.
We have been criticised on the question of support for the Shrewsbury pickets. I do not know how that matter is relevant to the motion, which attacks the Government for their alleged lack of support for the rule of law. It is clear that the Home Secretary, who has responsibility for recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, is not disposed to shorten the sentences or to quash the convictions of the Shrewsbury pickets. Many people take a different view and have sought to exercise pressure on the Home Secretary to make him take a different view. That is their democratic right and no one that I have seen in the representations that I have to consider on my right hon. Friend's behalf has ever acted unlawfully in making those representations.
It remains true that we are unconvinced, but even if we were convinced and did so act, is it to be said that when the power exists to use the Royal Prerogative and it is lawfully open to the Home Secretary to do so, he will be acting unlawfully if he exercises it? If so, then the precedent that the TUC has been putting forward is of great significance to hon. Members opposite. That relates to the actions of a Home Secretary in 1937, who in almost identical circumstances used the Royal Prerogative to shorten sentences. Perhaps the hon. Member should consider that aspect of his party's history.
Why the referendum has come into this debate I do not know. Ten Western nations have as part of their constitution the provision that a referendum should be available in certain circumstances and 39 American States who all uphold the English common law use referenda at certain times. Why this Government should not put forward at this time a suggestion that, on this crucial and unique occasion, the decision should be made by the British people in a referendum, and why that suggestion should be attacked as undermining the rule of law, I have no idea.
It so happens that I am not keen on having referenda and have in the past opposed their use—but only because it seems to me the wrong way in which to decide these issues. But so far as the British people have been given the opportunity to consider whether they want a referendum and have said overwhelmingly that they do, and since there is now a clear desire in the country that this matter should be settled once and for all by the British people, I am happy to see that referendum come about. But I cannot for the life of me see why, if it does, it will undermine the rule of law.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrence rose—

Mr. Lyon: No, I have only three minutes, and the hon. Gentleman had half an hour—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member had 69 minutes.

Mr. Lyon: I was going to say that he had half an hour on the Clay Cross councillors, to whom I now turn.
The hon. Gentleman read at great length bits about the Clay Cross coun-

cillors. Of course, in my judgment, those councillors acted wrongly in failing to administer the law laid down by Parliament, but if we are talking about their moral right to resist the law if they want to do so, no one brought up on the story of John Hampden can deny to anyone whose conscience strongly urges upon him resistance to law, even if passed by a democratic Government, the moral right to do so as long as he takes the consequences—and that is what those councillors decided to do.
The consequences still exist for them. They still have to pay back the considerable sum which they have been surcharged and they have still suffered the consequences in relation to standing for councils. I did not and still do not support what they did, but I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) that in considering the moral obloquy which should fall on their heads as a result of what they did, one has to take into account the fact that they thought they were doing it on behalf of the people who elected them.
Whether they were right to take that view is not for us to judge but for their electorate, and the result of their stand was that their electorate re-elected them to the council after they had been surcharged. In those circumstances, it is difficult to say that their attitude is the same as an attitude of self-interested acquisition of money or power by the undermining of law.
But I come back to my central thesis. I do not accept what they did and nor do the Government—

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — DIVORCE LAW REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Orders of the Day — FLUORIDATION

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the need to take action to promote dental health, which is in a very bad state at present. We are a nation with a high proportion of rotten teeth. The pattern is set in childhood. I am told that among five-year olds 70 per cent. require dental treatment. On average, they each have one decayed tooth and one already extracted. At 12 years old, 95 per cent. have some decay, and at 14 the figure is 97 per cent. Children with bad teeth become adults with bad teeth, or sometimes adults with no teeth at all.
Such figures, when turned into millions of people, are the measure of a massive quantity of pain, misery and suffering, of time wasted, of loss of work and of diet problems; for dental health affects general health. If anything can be done to cut down this largely unnecessary evil, surely the Government and Parliament have a duty to give a firm and clear lead.
Fortunately, something can be done. By putting a small amount of fluoride in water supplies, up to about one part per million—where it is not already present naturally up to that level—a great deal of dental decay can be prevented.
I should like to remind the House of the results—published last month—of fluoridation in Anglesey by quoting from the British Dental Journal of 4th March 1975:

In September 1974 a … study … was carried out on five-year-old and on 15-year-old Anglesey children who had throughout life received fluoridated drinking water. … Similiarly aged children from neighbouring Bangor and Caernarvon were examined for purposes of comparison. The average level of fluoride in the Anglesey drinking water has been taken to be 0.9 parts per milion and in the control community
—Bangor—
as 0·01 parts per million. Five-year-old Anglesey children had 38 per cent. fewer attacked teeth and 47 per cent. fewer attacked sites on teeth than had the control children.
The report in another passage, says that 15-year old Anglesey children had 44 per cent. fewer decayed teeth and 82 per cent. fewer decayed front teeth. Interestingly, there were no differences in the amount of mottling.
These results bear out the colossal volume of evidence of the beneficial effects of fluoride in other places, both where it occurs naturally in the water supply and where it has been artificially and deliberately introduced.
In the face of such evidence of the contribution to human welfare and relief from suffering that such action can bring, surely any refusal or failure to act is just as big a decision as to take positive action. Those who agitate against this simple measure carry a heavy responsibility on their shoulders.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: My hon. Friends refers to there being a heavy responsibility on the shoulders of those who agitate against this measure. I have a list here of over 350 doctors, dentists, research chemists and other scientists who say,
It is our opinion that published research work has shown clearly that the toxic effects of fluorides, even in trace quantities, are such that fluoridated drinking water may be harmful, or even dangerous, to many people, particularly in its long term effects, which have not been sufficiently investigated, and that it is therefore quite wrong to force everyone to consume artificially fluoridated water.

Mr. Jessel: The figure of 350 such people is not impressive when set against the totality of all doctors and dentists in this country who number about 30,000–100 times as many. The overwhelming majority of professional medical and dental opinion is in favour of fluoridation and accepts the evidence that it is beneficial to health and cannot be detrimental. However, I should be glad if


the Minister of State would comment on the point made by my hon. Friend.
I sometimes wonder what is in the minds of this vociferous but small band of people who argue against a proposal which is intended to relieve pain and which is supported by such a very large proportion of the experts. I believe that they are well meaning, but, apart from what I regard as their scaremongering, their main argument is that to fluoridate water is an interference with individual freedom. They argue that because of that it is wrong in principle.
However, in saying that, they oversimplify. In this controversy there is not one principle but two. On the one hand, there is the principle of the relief of human suffering and pain and the improvement of health. On the other hand, there is the argument for individual freedom. These two principles happen to be in conflict with one another. So we must decide how much weight to give to each.
The potential relief of pain for millions of people is substantial. The intrusion upon freedom in those cases is very slight. As in the view of the overwhelming majority of responsible opinion it carries no disadvantage, common sense suggests that the aim to stop pain should prevail over the other principle in this instance.
I should like to ask the Minister of State to comment on some other aspects, now if there is time or otherwise in a consultative paper that he promised in reply to a Question that I put on 25th March.
First, is there any evidence that water fluoridation strengthens the bones of middle-aged and elderly people? Secondly, will the hon. Gentleman tell us something of the costs of water fluoridation up to one part per million? I have heard the figure of lop per head per year quoted compared with an average of £3 per head per year spent on dental treatment. These figures may be out of date. I should like to know what the current position is.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that taxpayers' money is being wasted by not fluoridating water and that if fluoridation were to take place our limited dental manpower resources could be better applied?
Thirdly—this is an associated question—when I put my Question about the Anglesey results on 25th March, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir J Hall) asked a supplementary about the alternatives to fluoridation and said that it would be wasteful to apply fluoridation to everybody. Will the Minister comment on the comparative costs of other ways of taking fluoride than through the water supply, such as by tablets, in school milk or by topical application? More important than the costs, will the Minister comment on the practical prospects for achieving a wide, if not universal, coverage by such other means?
Fourthly, will the Minister comment on the suggestion by opponents of fluoridation that it postpones but does not prevent decay?
Fifthly, and most importantly, will the Minister confirm that fluoridation does no harm to health? Some opponents of fluoridation put out what I believe to be scaremongering material. How confident can the public be that there is nothing to worry about?
Two weeks ago, I had a letter from a Twickenham constituent who apparently had believed the scares of which he had read, and he wrote to tell me of his fear that fluoride was—to quote his words "a poisonous pollution". I felt that I should tell him in reply that, if he really believed that, he should stop drinking our local water in Twickenham, which already has a natural supply of fluoride of one part per 5 million, and he should order a supply of beer from a different part of the country.
In conclusion, I refer to the scope for action by the new health authorities. In a Written Answer on 24th March to a Question from me, the Minister said:
Under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 each health authority is fully responsible for deciding in respect of its own area whether it wishes fluoridation to be introduced and, if so, for approaching the appropriate regional water authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would expect a regional water authority to give effect as soon as it reasonably could to a health authority's request for fluoridation, provided that this was acceptable to any other health authority whose area would receive supplies of the fluoridated water."—[Official Report, 24th March 1974; Vol. 889, c. 15–16.]


That reply makes clear that the new health authorities have a duty to decide, and that the water authorities are expected to comply. But where populations under different health authorities share a common water supply, how can the matter be resolved if the majority of health authorities want fluoridation against the wishes of a minority which do not wish it? Are the wishes of the minority to prevail? That, surely, would be an undemocratic loading of the dice against action being taken. In my experience, that actually happened on the old Metropolitan Water Board in London, of which I was a member and on which I first took an interest in this subject.
I do not believe that the Department of Health and Social Security has yet faced up to this problem and brought out a solution. But with the establishment of the new health and water authorities, the time has surely come to do so. I shall be glad to hear from the Minister how he sees this important aspect of the matter.
We now know how to relieve a great deal of dental pain and suffering at low cost. I doubt that there is any other measure which would reduce misery and pain so effectively and so cheaply. Sooner or later, I am sure, it will come about, and then people will ask why it was not done earlier. What is needed now is common sense and, above all, courage.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I take it that the hon. Member for Kemptown has come to some arrangement for his intervention.

Mr. Jessel: I am very willing that my hon. Friend should intervene, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Certainly, but has the hon. Gentleman arranged to leave the Minister sufficient time to reply?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be very brief.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for giving me two minutes—it may be even less than that—to say a few words on this subject. I speak as chairman of the

all-party Anti-Fluoridation Group in the House, with 85 members.
Parliament has never specifically authorised or approved compulsory mass medication, and I believe that it would be utterly wrong to allow it to go ahead on any basis until the House has debated the matter in principle and decided to give its approval.
The fundamental issue at stake here is the right to accept or reject treatment, for if something is put into the water supply—whatever it may be, and for whatever reason—no element of choice is left, and the vast majority of our people have to take water from that supply. It is one of the great principles of freedom in this country that an individual or family shall have the right to decide what they eat and drink, and that parents shall be free to decide what their children take in the form of medication.
The supporters of fluoridation have not made out their case on medical grounds. There are serious differences of medical opinion not only in this country but throughout the world. It would, therefore, be utterly wrong to go ahead even on medical grounds until we were absolutely sure that there were no long-term harmful effects. But, on the moral issue alone, I believe it to be wrong to have any form of mass compulsory medication in this country.

15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): It may help the House if I state from the start that fluoridation as a public health measure is supported by almost every reputable body in the whole area of public health. It is supported by the Central Health Services Council, the Standing Dental and Medical Advisory Committees, the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association, and the Royal Society of Health, and by unanimous resolution of the World Health Assembly. I do not believe that such organisations are likely to endorse a measure of unproven safety and efficacy and it is because I believe that it is of both proven safety and efficacy that I shall respond to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in the spirit in which he raised the matter.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) had


the opportunity of intervening because it is right to reflect in a debate of this sort that there are differences of view. No one is suggesting compulsory mass medication. That would mean that the Government were saying that fluoridation of all water supplies should take place immediately. The hon. Member is right to say that that has never been adopted by this House, and were such a decision to be made by a Government it would rightly be debated in this House.
The first thing that needs to be stated about fluoride is that it occurs naturally in the water supply in many parts of the country anyway. I draw attention to the resolution of the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Water Fluoridation which stated:
The most convincing evidence of the safety of water fluoridation comes from the numerous population groups who have drunk naturally fluoridated water containing one part per million or more during their lifetimes. In these groups drinking has been, of course, uncontrolled and there have been well and ill babies as well as healthy young adults and frail elderly people. Medical practitioners and specialists in these areas have never detected and defined a systematic aberration in health of any kind related to the fluoride consumed.
This is a most powerful statement.
There has been a lot of scientific controversy about fluoride. Arguments against the widely-established evidence of the safety of water fluoridation have, in general, been based I believe on unique conditions. I have studied this evidence as much as I have been able to study it, and in my judgment as a health Minister, over 20 years of careful and intensive epidemiological studies have demonstrated the safety of controlled-water fluoridation as consistently as its effectiveness in the prevention of dental decay.
I should like to turn to some of the points raised in the debate about both the powers and the costs and certain other aspects, but I shall deal also with the situation which exists at the moment. Fluoridation consists merely of the adjustment to the optimum level for dental protection—one part per million in temperate climates—of the fluoride content of those water supplies which are deficient in it naturally. Intensive investigations have shown that children brought up in areas with about one part of fluoride

per million parts of water have on average about 50 per cent. less dental decay than children brought up in areas where there is only a trace of fluoride. Moreover, in areas with this level of fluoride there are many more children with teeth completely free of decay.
There have been extensive reports on fluoridation studies. Reports were published in 1962 and 1969 on the results achieved after five years and 11 years respectively. I will not go into that aspect now. Many of these facts and many of the different arguments and decisions about the matter will be presented when we deal with preventive health, as we promised, in the consultative document to be produced towards the end of this year. That will go much wider than just fluoridation.
There have been some remarkable investigations, and attention should be drawn to one of them which showed that the withdrawal of fluoridation led to a reversal of the benefits in the areas where there was shown to be a benefit. One of the study areas, Kilmarnock, where improvements in children's dental condition had been observed similar to those in some of the studies elsewhere, ceased to fluoridate its water supply in 1962. By 1968 caries experience in five-year-old children had increased, and was substantially the same as in the control town, Ayr. The only consistent change in Kilmarnock between the start of the study in 1956 and the end of fluoridation in 1962, and thereafter to 1968, was in the fluoride content of the water supply. That is probably one of the most interesting experiments where we have seen a reversal of the trend when fluoridation of the water ceased.
The Research Committee concluded after 11 years of the studies:
The fluoridation of water supplies at the level of one part per million of fluoride is a highly effective way of reducing dental decay and is completely safe.
I should like to deal with some other studies made since then. The study in Anglesey has been mentioned. Anglesey was one of the areas in the United Kingdom study, which for that purpose had been divided into fluoridated study and unfluoridated control areas until 1964. The recent paper by Professor Jackson and his colleagues described a study of caries experience in five-year-old and 15-year-old Anglesey children


who throughout life had received fluoridated drinking water, and in children of similar age from Bangor and Caernarvon, which had negligible amounts of fluoride in their drinking water, and which had to be used as control areas because of the fluoridation of the whole of Anglesey. To avoid the possibility of bias, all children were taken to a single examination centre, where the dental examiners were kept unaware of the communities from which the children came. That study has shown convincingly the benefits of fluoridation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the strengthening of bones and whether fluoridation had any other influences. The expert Research Committee noted, from published reports, that
The influence of fluorides on the skeletal system has been the subject of much research and evidence is now emerging of a possible beneficial effect on the prevalence of osteoporosis in the elderly.
However, the evidence is still somewhat tentative by comparison with the case for fluoridation to bring about an improvement in dental health. I do not want to make too much of it at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of cost. The report on "The Fluoridation Studies in the United Kingdom, and the Results Achieved after Eleven Years" indicated that the reductions in the number of decayed teeth which have occurred at Watford, a study area, since the water supply was fluoridated, represented over the whole of England and Wales a potential elimination of the need to fill each year more than 2½ million temporary teeth in children up to the age of seven and more than 1 million permanent teeth in children up to the age of 10. In time this will lead to both a higher standard of dental health and an improved dental service for the whole population. Against that background, it is right for the Department of Health and Social Security to invest in such worthwhile objectives.
As for specific costs, it is difficult to offer a precise figure, because of varying conditions in local areas. But it is probably reasonable to estimate that at present it should be a few pence per annum per head of the population over the whole country, a small amount when considered against the background of the benefits that fluoridation is known to bring.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the comparative costs of alternative measures, such as tablets. I am carefully considering the matter, and hope to be able to deal with it in the consultative document. All the evidence is that such measures are less reliable and more costly as preventive measures covering the whole population. It is difficult to know their exact costs, but all the evidence indicates that fluoridation of water supplies is not only the most effective but the cheapest way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about our powers. The matter is complicated. Under section 2 (2)(e) of the National Health Service Act 1973 the appropriate Secretary of State has the duty to provide throughout England and Wales, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements, such facilities for the prevention of illness as are appropriate as part of the health service in place of arrangements of a kind which were provided by the former local health authorities under section 12 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, which continued earlier provisions. The facilities covered by this provision include fluoridation as a public health measure for the prevention of dental decay.
In the National Health Service Functions (Directions to Authorities) Regulations 1974, Statutory Instrument 1974/24, the Secretary of State has directed that this duty should be exercised by regional health authorities, in England, and, on their behalf, by area health authorities. Where an area health authority decides to introduce fluoridation of water supplies in its own area it has to approach the appropriate regional water authority about the necessary arrangements.
The nine regional water authorities in England were set up under the Water Act 1973, which, like much of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973, came into operation on 1st April 1974. The Government expect any water authority that receives a request from a health authority for fluoridation to give effect to it as soon as it reasonably can—it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—assuming that that is also acceptable to any other health authority whose area would receive supplies of fluoridated water.
I recognise the importance of what the hon. Member has said about the overlapping of areas of water authorities and health authorities. It causes considerable problems. I should like to look into the problem of overlapping when there is a division of opinion between health authorities that take their water from the same water authority. It is not a matter of having a unanimous view. It simply has to be the view of the area authority, and the water authority should then undertake its responsibility. The cost, as with most public health measures, is borne by the area health authority, and I have already said that potentially there are considerable savings to be made.
The use of fluoride remains pre-eminent among the measures available for increasing resistance to dental decay. Experience over the many years has shown that the fluoridation of water supplies is by far the best and cheapest means of ensuring the adequate levels necessary to build up resistance to caries, although caries can never be excluded.
As the House knows, we have recently had evidence of the extent of dental decay in children, and I must confess that these figures are shattering. The extent of dental decay in children, as shown by the survey, is that two-thirds of the 13,000 children surveyed, aged between five and 15 years, required treatment for dental caries and about one-quarter of the five to eight-year-olds, and one in eight of the nine to 15 age group had five or more actively decaying teeth.
A similar survey among adults in 1968 showed that in England and Wales as a whole nearly 37 per cent. of those surveyed had lost all their natural teeth and in more than 50 per cent. of those total tooth loss had occurred since the National Health Service began.
Those are very depressing figures. They emphasise the need for dental health measures that, by protecting against dental decay in childhood, will provide sound, healthy, natural teeth, which, as I have explained, should last through much of adult life. It is certainly a mistake to think that fluoridation is something to be done only for children, as has sometimes been said.
I need not remind the House of the benefit to general health that is obtained from having natural teeth, particularly in being able to take advantage of a more naturally nutritious diet. A great deal of cost would be saved to the country as well as a great deal of pain and misery. Dental trouble is also a frequent cause of people staying away from work.
Area health authorities have to look at all this as part of their overall responsibility for the health of the people. We are to publish a consultative document. The Royal College of Physicians is currently making a survey and I hope that it will allay some of the anxieties that the hon. Member has mentioned among a small number in the medical and other professions, and I hope that it will convince those few remaining doubters of the safety and efficacy of these measures.
It is up to the area health authorities to decide. Personally, I hope that they will decide on fluoridation. I believe in more democratic health authorities and I believe that they should reflect the views of their localities, but in my responsibility as a health Minister I shall do everything I can to encourage them to make this decision.
Compulsory mass medication is a quite separate issue, as the hon. Member said. It is a difficult subject on which the House and the Government any Government—will eventually have to decide. At present power resides with the regional health authorities. With the present massive expenditure on the treatment of dental decay in this country, any health authority should weigh the advantages carefully when considering the cost. My advice is that it is worth paying the cost because of the benefits to dental health.
But it is a choice for the authorities to make. They certainly have my support if they decide to fluoridate the water supply, and—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Four o'clock.